Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Madam Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Gordon McMaster, the Member for Paisley, South. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

New Deal for Lone Parents

Mr. Rammell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on support for single parents. [9028]

The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Last week, the Government launched the first stage of our welfare-to-work programme—our manifesto commitment to implement a new deal for lone parents. This is a pioneering programme which marks a radical new

approach to welfare, bringing work, skills, opportunities and ambition to all those who until now have been left behind.

Mr. Rammell: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. In my constituency of Harlow, 60 per cent. of lone parents are unemployed, not through choice but because of the inadequacy of child care support. Is not adequate child care support absolutely essential in helping lone parents move from benefit into work? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend explain how the Government intend to restructure the single regeneration budget to aid that process?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that lone parents want to work rather than be dependent on benefit, but many of them say that they would be more likely to get work if there were more child care. That is why we promised in our manifesto that we would have a national child care strategy, which we have already started to implement. As well as increasing the child care disregard in family credit, which gives extra cash help to mothers moving off income support and into work, we have, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, said that, for the first time, child care provision will be an important focus for funds from the single regeneration budget. The new priority that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has given to child care as part of economic regeneration is evidence that we are putting child care at the heart of our economic strategy.

Mr. Baldry: That was a statement.

Madam Speaker: It was much too long an answer.

Mr. Webb: With regard to lone parents who are unable to get off welfare and into work, and of whom there will presumably be several hundred thousand even after the new deal, will the Secretary of State confirm that, from next April, new lone parents on income support will have


to live on £5 a week less than existing lone parents? What effect does she think that will have on the standard of living of the children in those families?

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman well knows the proposals for the lone-parent premium and the one-parent benefit, which were debated in the House last week, but the clear message from lone parents is that they do not want to live on full-time benefits. They want to be in work, financially able to support themselves and their children. Our new deal for lone parents has started with an invitation to all lone parents with children of school age for an interview with a personal adviser, but, even in the first week after the launch of the new deal in eight areas, one of the things that have struck us—I shall report further to the House as the scheme proceeds—is how many of the lone parents who have rung up were not those who were invited, but those whose children are under five but who also want to be able to work rather than bring up their children on benefits.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Social Security Bill which we debated last week will implement a Conservative proposal to reduce the level of child benefit for lone parents. Even though the right hon. Lady opposed it previously, she is now pushing it through, but the point is that there is still a proposal to reduce the premium on income support for lone parents, which requires secondary legislation. Will the right hon. Lady tell us when she intends to introduce that, or does she have some other plans?

Ms Harman: That proposal will be brought forward shortly.

Mr. Burns: When?

Ms Harman: I have answered that question.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) will note the report published this week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which shows that widening inequality is largely the gap between households in which someone is in work and those without work. There are 1 million lone mothers bringing up 2 million children in households without work. It is because we want to tackle inequality and improve opportunities for those who have been excluded that we shall introduce our welfare-to-work programme for lone mothers.

Claimants (Improved Services)

Mr. Andy King: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's plans to improve services to claimants by sharing information within her Department relating to claimants. [9030]

Ms Harman: Improving services to claimants to help rebuild public support for the social security system is central to our plans to reform the welfare state. It is unacceptable that claimants have to give the same information over and over again to different parts of the benefits system. Through the Social Security Bill, we shall take steps to remedy the matter.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her answer. Time and again, people have come to my

surgeries in despair at the amount of time and energy that they are wasting in trying to find their way through the very complex and inefficient system that we inherited from the previous Government. Will she confirm that, on average, some people who appeal against decisions must wait six months for a decision, and that, in some cases, they must wait up to two years for a hearing? What will she do to tackle that intolerable situation?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises two important points: the amount of time that claimants must waste in providing the same information to different parts of the social security system; and the fact that claimants must, on average, wait six months before their appeal is decided. In many cases, those appealing against a benefit decision do not receive a decision for more than two years, and that is totally unacceptable. One of the objectives of our Social Security Bill is to cut the time required for people to have an appeal heard and decided.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is not one related problem the amount of time required for claimants to reach benefits offices on the telephone? Does the Secretary of State have any proposals to improve communications between members of the public and her offices? If so, will she institute a review into the matter?

Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government need thoroughly to modernise the relationship between the social security system and claimants, and we intend to do so. The way in which the social security system currently operates—requiring claimants to provide, time and again, the same information to different parts of the system—wastes the time of staff and claimants and taxpayers' money.
Claimants subsequently have to ring a benefits office if they lose track of what stage they have reached in dealing with the system about one of the five benefits that they may be receiving. I am holding the forms necessary to notify one single change in circumstance—that a lone mother wants to move off income support because she has found a job. A lone mother must fill in all of these forms to communicate to the Child Support Agency, the local authority and those dealing with family credit and income support the one bit of information that she has a job. If she subsequently tries to telephone to discover what on earth has happened to any of the forms, she probably will not be able to get through.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of improving services to claimants would be to guarantee that they will have ready access to Benefits Agency offices? Is she aware that there is concern that, if the Government—as anticipated, under what is called the prime scheme, the private sector resource initiative for management of the estate—announce that they will dispose of benefits offices as heritable property and lease them back, it will be the prelude to a rationalisation process in which Benefits Agency offices will be closed? Will she give an assurance that that will not happen, and pay attention specifically to the needs of claimants in rural areas, who are sometimes already far removed from the nearest Benefits Agency office?

Ms Harman: We are absolutely determined to modernise and improve social security services, not only


for those who live in towns and cities but for those in rural areas. The opportunities provided by extended telephone use and new technology mean that there is no reason why claimants should have to waste half their lives trying to deal with different parts of the system. We are ensuring that we shall improve the system so that it wastes less time for claimants and staff, wastes less money for taxpayers, provides a prompt and efficient service and makes the right decision the first time.

Mr. Blizzard: I welcome my right hon. Friend's drive to reduce paperwork in the benefits system. Will she also consider the needs of disabled people who, under the benefit integrity programme introduced by the previous Government, are required to fill in a 33-page questionnaire? If they do not, a home visit can then be followed up by a tribunal. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether that is really necessary, especially in the light of reports from my local disablement information and advice line office, which is inundated by cries for help from disabled people to whom it cannot always respond because of the sheer weight of paperwork from the Benefits Agency?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises two points. First, he referred to people with disabilities being required to fill in dozens of different forms that require the same information and then having to repeat the exercise. I addressed that in earlier answers. We share his concern, which affects people claiming benefit as a result of disability as well as pensioners and the unemployed.
Secondly, my hon. Friend referred to benefit fraud. We are concerned to get benefits to people who are entitled to them because of incapacity or disability. However, we are also concerned that those who are not entitled to benefits should not receive them. We want to rebuild public support for the social security system. People will not support a system that wastes claimants' time with hundreds of forms. Nor will they support a system that they know is open to abuse whereby those who are not entitled to benefits receive them.

Pensions

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to increase the number of people with fully funded second-tier pensions. [9031]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post as social security spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. As part of our pensions review, we shall examine ways in which we can further support and strengthen the existing framework of occupational pension provision where that is necessary. We shall consult widely on our proposals for stakeholder pensions that will offer secure, flexible and value-for-money funded second pensions for those who cannot join an employer's occupational pension scheme. They will be particularly aimed at those on low earnings or with intermittent patterns of employment, for whom personal pensions are usually unsuitable.

Mr. Rendel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks and for his support in general for second-tier pensions. Does he agree that it is certainly regrettable that

the Chancellor in his Budget introduced measures that will discourage people from taking out fully funded second-tier pensions?

Mr. Denham: Pensions are a long-term investment and they depend on the success and the strength of the economy. It was therefore right for the economy and for future pensions provision that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took measures to remove biases against investment and to increase the level and quality of long-term investment. That will produce the wealth on which pensions can be paid in future.

Mr. Pike: Is it not time to do something for pensioners such as those in the Bellings pension fund scheme who will not get what they paid for because of the fraud that was committed by the former directors of the scheme? When they retire, those pensioners will get only about 30 per cent. of what they expected.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that problem. The new regulatory authority for occupational pensions came into operation at the beginning of April. I hope that the measures in the Pensions Act 1995 will strengthen the protection of pension scheme members. However, we shall take stock of the practical workings of that Act to identify any areas where further improvement is necessary.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents thought that they had fully funded pension schemes until 2 July and they are now affronted to discover that they have lost 15 to 20 per cent. of the benefit of those schemes? Is he aware that my constituents are furiously angry that the Government are now promoting second pensions when the Chancellor removed many of those benefits on 2 July?

Mr. Denham: Those of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who have defined benefits schemes will have their benefits protected by the schemes. Those in personal pension schemes who are approaching retirement would in the normal course of events have already seen their investments switched away from equities either automatically by some providers or, in other cases, on the advice of financial advisers. In any case, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the performance of the stock market since January, as that should give him some reassurance.

Mr. Wicks: Does my hon. Friend recognise that some of the hardest-working people in the country are not in the waged economy, but are carers for elderly people and for others with disabilities? They are often denied access to a decent pension. What plans does he have to ensure that carers in Britain—our most responsible citizens—can have a decent old age with a decent pension?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right to point out that some people work hard for society, but are not in a position to pay into a funded second pension. That is why, as part of our pensions review, we shall consult widely on our proposals for a citizenship pension, to explore ways in which those who exercise responsibilities as carers can


develop rights to a decent second pension and avoid the fate of retirement on to means-tested benefits—a prospect which faces far too many people today.

Mr. David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if her Department will write to those people with personal pensions informing them of recent or prospective changes to their pensions. [9032]

Mr. Denham: The package of measures in the Budget will promote an environment in which pensions will flourish. It will encourage investment, stable economic policies and sustainable economic growth. Pensions are a long-term investment. Responsibility for advising policy holders lies with individual providers and financial advisers, within the guidance offered by the regulators.

Mr. Davis: The Minister should be able to answer my question more quickly than that—a simple yes or no will do. In view of what he has just said, do the Government welcome the fact that a number of companies are considering whether to move from final salary pensions to money-purchase pensions?

Mr. Denham: Many factors govern the decision of employers as to what type of pension scheme to offer. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there was much speculation before the Budget about whether schemes would switch to contracting out on a different basis. I am sure that he agrees that what matters is the quality of the pension on offer, rather than the detail of the scheme.

New Deal for Lone Parents

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's new deal proposals to help lone parents into work. [9033]

Ms Harman: Our manifesto committed us to introducing a new deal for lone parents. That has already begun in eight areas, including Sheffield—in which my hon. Friend's constituency lies—where it is offering hope and opportunity for 10,000 lone mothers on income support, who are bringing up 20,000 children.

Mr. Michie: I welcome the Government's programme of removing the barriers that prevent lone parents who want to work from doing so. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that a lone parent who finally takes a job but who then, for reasons that were unforeseen initially, cannot continue with that employment will not be financially disadvantaged relative to their previous situation?

Ms Harman: There is no question of people being penalised if they leave their work. Lone parents who go to work are, on average, £50 a week better off than they were on benefit. That is why so many of them want to work. Part of the job of the personal advisers to lone parents, who have been appointed already in eight areas, including Sheffield, is to assist lone parents when they start work, helping them to get their child care and benefits sorted out and advising them during their first

few weeks and months in work to ensure that they manage to keep their work rather than falling back to income support.

Mr. Brazier: Bearing in mind the fact that some of those who pay taxes for such child care are low-earning families, which group of lone parents does the right hon. Lady think will benefit from the extension of the child care disregard from £40 a week to £100 a week?

Ms Harman: The child care disregard is designed to increase the affordability of child care, as part of our national child care strategy. We want more people to be trained with child care qualifications to improve the supply of child care workers. We also want to increase the number of child care places. We shall do that through the single regeneration budget, as a start, and with funds from the midweek lottery. That will benefit not only lone parents, but low-income families in which the woman is working and wants to ensure that her children are safely looked after while she is at work.

Reduced Earnings Allowance

Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she expects the review of the reduced earnings allowance to be completed; and if she will make a statement. [9034]

Mr. Denham: We have completed the review of reduced earnings allowance. Those affected by the transfer of over-pension-age recipients of reduced earnings allowance to the retirement allowance 16 months ago were harshly treated by the previous Government. Many people lost up to £30 a week in benefit with little or no advance warning, and without the transitional protection which we proposed at the time.
Regretfully, however, we have concluded that we cannot remedy that injustice without breaking our manifesto commitment to keep within current spending totals. We have also concluded that retirement allowance is the right benefit for those recipients who are over retirement age. We are determined that reduced-earnings-allowance recipients will receive sufficient advance warning in future. The Benefits Agency will remind people receiving REA of the forthcoming transfer to retirement allowance well in advance of retirement.

Ann Clwyd: Well, I am very sorry to hear that answer, particular given that my hon. Friend described the situation in which such people were left as harsh. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to me in a letter last year that those people had been left in an appalling situation. We are talking about 20,000 people, many of whom live in the poorest parts of the country. Certainly in Wales, many are widows and living on very low incomes. They have already taken a 75 per cent. cut in their income through the withdrawal of the reduced earnings allowance. If it was wrong last year, why is it right this year?

Mr. Denham: I have recognised the hardship caused by the previous Government's action. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise the difficulty in putting right every single injustice perpetrated by that Government. To restore reduced earnings allowance to those who are


transferred on to retirement allowance would cost about £45 million a year and would require us to cut expenditure elsewhere. This Government have not been afraid to take the difficult decisions necessary in order to stick within our manifesto commitments.

Mr. Garnier: As the Minister fairly said, it was right that those who were about to retire should receive advance warning of changes of plans. Where, therefore, in the Labour party's manifesto will pensioners and future pensioners find a reference to advance corporation tax?

Madam Speaker: I am not clear whether that was a substantive question. If the hon. and learned Member wants an answer, perhaps he will table a substantive question, to which I am sure that he will be given a response.

New Deal for Lone Parents

Mrs. Brinton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact of the welfare-to-work proposals as they affect single parents. [9035]

Ms Harman: The new deal for lone parents offers help to every lone parent with school-age children to give them support and advice to help them off benefit and into work. Following the launch on Monday in the first eight areas of our new deal, we shall monitor progress in those eight areas and report back to the House.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that, in my constituency of Peterborough, 22 per cent. of families with dependent children are single parent or lone-parent families? Does she, like me, deplore the comments of Conservative Members, especially those of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has tended to blame single parents for all the evils in society rather than the disastrous policies of the previous Government? Will she be prepared at some time in the future to visit my constituency so that she can tell lone parents how Labour's policies will benefit them?

Ms Harman: I shall certainly visit my hon. Friend's constituency and talk to the personal advisers who are working with lone mothers there. She is right to remind the House that the previous Government simply blamed lone parents. They left 1 million on income support, bringing up 2 million children, which left those families with a low standard of living and the taxpayer with a high bill. That is why we have a welfare-to-work programme to improve the standard of living for lone mothers and their children.

Mr. Baldry: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the best way in which to deal with differentials in income in our society, as identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies today, is not by increasing rates of taxation or introducing penal rates of taxation but by helping people who are not in work to get back into work?

Ms Harman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The best way to deal with inequality in income is through

education and work opportunities. Those are the findings of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report and are two key planks of the Government's policy.

Income Support

Kali Mountford: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the reasons why pensioners do not claim income support. [9036]

Mr. Denham: Our review of pensions is looking at the central areas of pensions insecurity for elderly people. Pensions are of key importance to people's lives and it is vital to build a sustainable consensus on the way forward so that everyone can look forward to a secure and dignified retirement.
We are committed to examining ways of helping up to 1 million pensioners who are entitled to income support but do not claim it. We are commissioning research to establish why they do not take up their benefit entitlement.

Kali Mountford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that an estimated 1,150 pensioners in my constituency do not take up pensions? When I contacted my local DSS office, I was told that it had no strategy to encourage the take-up of pensions. Is it not the case that pensioners have no choice, contrary to what the Conservatives claimed when they were in power, and that we need a strategy to ensure that people who feel that a stigma is attached to means-tested benefits are encouraged to take up their entitlement?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Administration took the view that the only explanation for non-take-up was choice by poor elderly pensioners. The figures that she has given from her constituency show why it is so important that we understand the obstacles that those pensioners face in claiming the benefit so that we can examine ways forward.

Mr. Yeo: Does the Minister understand that the main reason why pensioners do not claim income support is that they are not eligible for it because they receive a second pension? Therefore, will he confirm, as a matter of simple fact, that the value of the pensions—which millions of personal pension plan holders looked forward to receiving—were substantially devalued by the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid on 2 July?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in both assertions. Pensioners who are entitled to income support but who do not claim it do not have a second pension or, if they do, it is not enough to take them above income support level. The hon. Gentleman would do better to express some concern about why that situation exists, as we are doing.

Mr. Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that some pensioners do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled because the Conservative party created a culture in which people believe that anyone who claims benefit is a scrounger? What we need to do is to persuade


pensioners that, far from scrounging, they are claiming something for which they have paid all their lives and on which they have a legitimate claim.

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. One of the problems that we have to overcome is the legacy of 18 years in which everybody who claimed any benefit was labelled a scrounger. That is one of the reasons why proud elderly people are reluctant to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.

Mr. Burns: The Government's aim is to encourage pensioners to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. How does that square with the nasty and vindictive clause 70 in the Social Security Bill which will reduce the back-dating claim time from three months to one month? If more pensions are claimed, what assessment has been made by his Department of the amount of public money available and how much has been set aside to meet those claims?

Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already set out, in last week's debate on social security, why we intend to have a social security system that operates efficiently and effectively in the interests of those who use it. That is what we shall do.

Minster for Women

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the priorities of the Minister for Women. [9037]

Ms Harman: My priorities as Minister for Women are to open a new dialogue between Government and women, and to deliver the Government's commitments to women. We have already established a powerful Cabinet sub-committee for women, which will meet for the first time this afternoon and will put women's concerns at the heart of the Government. The sub-committee will ensure an effective cross-departmental approach to issues of concern to women.

Mr. Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many women feel more disconnected from politics and government than men do? At the election, 101 Labour women Members of Parliament were elected, compared with 13 Tory women and three Liberal Democrats. What will my right hon. Friend do to build on the opportunity of by far the largest representation in the House that women have ever had to make politics and government more relevant to women?

Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right. Women feel more disconnected and alienated from the work of political parties and Government than men do. Now that we have the opportunity provided by the presence of an unprecedented number of female Labour Members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to establish a new dialogue with women. We can do that in two ways: through better communications with women's organisations and by reaching out to women across the country by new means—deliberative opinion polls, citizens' juries and representative people's panels. Many women see no reflection of their views in the House of

Commons, and no connection between their lives and Government. The new Labour Administration will put that right.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Where in the priorities of the Minister for Women will come the case of the child carer in my constituency who tells me that, as a result of the changes in the Budget, she will now have to contribute an extra £20 a month to a personal pension scheme?

Ms Harman: Many people who took out personal pensions were hard done by at the hands of the last Government, whose policy allowed people to be encouraged to opt out of good occupational pension schemes and to be mis-sold personal pensions. Many of those people have not even been compensated for their loss of income in retirement. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about increasing the connection between the work of Government and women in his constituency.

Mr. Gray: Is the Minister for Women aware that, at the last general election, more public schoolboys than women stood as Labour candidates? What steps will she take to increase the number of women Members on the Government Benches?

Ms Harman: The last general election was a great step forward in terms of women's representation. We have an unprecedented number of women Members. We still have further to go, however. We want to ensure that women understand that their views are listened to in Government. I am not referring just to women on the inside track, or women involved in organisations, but to all women. For 18 years, we had a Government who thought that women's demands were there to be resisted and ridiculed, but all that has now changed. Opposition Members should recognise that the tide of opinion has moved past them on this as well as many other issues.

Pensions

Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the impact on the state earnings-related pension scheme of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit. [9038]

Mr. Denham: The Budget measures will encourage stable economic policies, sustainable economic growth and the long-term performance of investment and of British companies. Companies providing occupational pension schemes will benefit from the reduction in corporation tax and other measures announced in the Budget to encourage investment. The advance corporation tax credit change will have no direct impact on SERPS, which is not a pre-funded scheme.

Mr. Sayeed: Now that the Labour Government have increased the cost of pensions by more than 15 per cent., do they intend to encourage or compel people to save for second-tier pensions? If so, why should people do that when they do not know whether a Labour Chancellor will rob them yet again in the future?

Mr. Denham: Opposition Members are not in a good position to talk about the value for money that people


receive from their pension schemes, given the large number of people who lost out through the mis-selling of personal pensions—which the last Government encouraged—and the high fees and charges that have been visited on many people with low incomes and intermittent earnings through personal pensions. When we carry out our pensions review—in which we shall consider ways of extending the coverage of value-for-money funded second-tier pensions—we shall set out to ensure that savers get real value for money for their hard-earned savings, and can benefit from that when they retire.

Mr. Flynn: Has not the Budget removed the unfair circumstances in which people in SERPS did not have the advantage of a handout from the taxpayer, unlike those with personal pensions? When examining new pension schemes, however, would it not be better for us to build on the advantages of SERPS? At worst, 2 per cent. of its charges are spent on administration. Could not that advantage be built on with a new, funded SERPS, since in the case of present private pensions at least 25 per cent. of charges are spent on administration? Would it not be better to build on SERPS, as a funded scheme, rather than go into private pensions?
Can my hon. Friend also explain one puzzle? Why do we hear that one of the people who was responsible for mis-selling personal pension schemes on a large scale is to advise the Government? Will experts on national insurance schemes be included to advise the Government on their pensions review?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend asked a lot of questions, which I doubt whether Madam Speaker will allow me to answer in full. In our manifesto, we are committed to retaining SERPS for those who want to remain in it. Clearly, it is for individuals to decide which is the best form of provision for them. My hon. Friend is right to focus on a central issue, which is whether people will get value for the money that they put aside as savings. How will that be reflected in their final pension and will they feel that they have had a good deal at the end of the day? It is clear that many people who have set out to save for their pensions in recent years do not feel that they have had a good deal for the money that they have put aside.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows from previous statements that the changes in the Budget affect the rebate, which will affect SERPS and is likely to leave people in SERPS rather than wanting to come out. On that basis, will he say once and for all whether the pensions review will consider SERPS in total and whether, if it concludes that SERPS should be phased out, the Labour Government will do so? Or, will they stand by their manifesto commitment to do no such thing?

Mr. Denham: Our pensions review will study the future of all second-tier pension provision, but the statement made in our manifesto is clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rebate. I must point out to him that his Administration spent about £17 billion more—largely from the national insurance fund—to encourage people to opt out into personal pensions, than will ever be saved in the future on SERPS expenditure. I can assure him that we will aim to protect the integrity of the national insurance fund as we take our review forward.

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve services to those claiming incapacity benefit. [9039]

Mr. Denham: In our terms of reference for our comprehensive spending review, we announced that we would review the purpose and nature of all the major components of the social security system, including sickness and disability benefits. A key priority will be to simplify the complex system of provision for sick and disabled people, which includes incapacity benefit, with particular emphasis on removing the barriers in the system that currently prevent people who are able and wish to work from doing so.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's approach to disabled people and those with long-term ill health was simply to write them off as unemployable, when many of them would value the opportunity of a job? Does he agree that the country really needs a Government who are committed to looking at people as individuals and not as statistics, and who are looking to give everyone who is able to work the encouragement and opportunity to do so, to provide a better life for themselves and their families?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. Through no desire of their own, many sick and disabled people are trapped in a benefits system that encourages sickness and encourages people to stay out of work. We aim to remove the barriers inherent in the system, which prevent people from maximising their ability to work and will, therefore, be developing similar welfare-to-work proposals for the sick and disabled to those already announced for lone mothers.

Mr. Flight: Will it not be more difficult for people to claim incapacity benefits as a result of the stricter medical tests proposed in the Social Security Bill?

Mr. Denham: We all agree that the procedures that we use should be fair and that there should be a proper assessment of an individual's capacity for work. The focus should be on assessing that capacity, rather than having a benefit system that simply says to so many people, "All the incentives are to make yourself unavailable for work."

Mr. Swinney: Following the Minister's point about fairness in the system of allocating incapacity benefit, will he give me some advice that I can pass on to those of my constituents who previously received incapacity benefit and whose health has not materially improved, but who have lost incapacity benefit and now find that they have to wait nine months for independent tribunals to examine their case?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and I hope that we will enjoy his support during the passage of the Social Security Bill, one of whose aims is to simplify and streamline the system of appeals and appeal determination, while retaining the essential elements of independence and fairness.

Fraud Hotline

Mr. Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received concerning the social security fraud hotline. [9040]

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Of all the representations the Government have received, only one letter has been critical of the fraud hotline.

Mr. Evans: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does he agree that the social security fraud hotline was a successful initiative by the previous Government? To enhance its success in future, will he ensure that British Telecommunications plc and other telephone book operators allow prominent display of the hotline in their pages? Will he also have discussions with BT and other public phone box operators? I cannot go past those boxes without failing to notice that they seem to be packed full of cards advertising all sorts of interesting and unusual services—I hasten to add that I am not interested in using them myself. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the companies to clean up their act and ensure that the social security fraud hotline number is given a prominent position in all public phone boxes in the country?

Mr. Field: During the Attlee Government, a Minister was asked a whole series of questions to which he replied: yes, yes, no, yes, but not necessarily in that order. The answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions are: yes, yes and yes.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that when the hotline was established during the previous Parliament, I rang and complained about the fraud committed by Ministers—the then Prime Minister, the then Secretary of State for Social Security and a number of others—who in so many ways undermined pensions and social security provision? When I gave the names of the Ministers concerned, including that of the former Prime Minister, I was told that those complaints could not be taken up. My views on the subject remain the same, as, no doubt, do my right hon. Friend's.

Mr. Field: I presume that the Department got my hon. Friend's letter muddled and included it as the one complaint against the hotline, so the answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is that the Government have received no complaints about the fraud hotline.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the feedback to people who have made a complaint? They see neighbours apparently defrauding the system and then have no way of knowing that action has been taken. I recognise the problems of sub judice and confidentiality, but will he look carefully at ways of ensuring that there is proper feedback, or at least that everybody is told that every case is looked at? If prosecution follows or someone is found to be at fault, surely the public should be told what action has been taken.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Long-term Unemployed

Mr. Truswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for getting the long-term unemployed off social security benefits and into work. [9041]

Mr. Field: By the middle of next year, the Government will bring on stream two policies aimed at helping the long-term unemployed back to work. There will be a job subsidy for that group. In addition, those wishing to participate in up-to-year-long education courses that are related to their work aspirations will be allowed to do so.

Mr. Truswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. What work is his Department doing in conjunction with other Departments to ensure access to high-quality—I stress, high-quality—employment opportunities for my constituents and to move away from the rag bag of often Mickey Mouse schemes to which they were subjected by the Conservatives?

Mr. Field: The Government's intent is clear: we are aiming for high-quality employment opportunities. If people gain opportunities in the private sector, the chances of their long-term employment prospects being enhanced are greater and that is where much of our effort will go.

Mr. Willetts: Does the Minister agree that one way of helping people into work is through family credit, which is paid as a benefit, often to the mother? Does he also agree that that contrasts with tax allowances or the earned income tax credit, which are payable to a person in work, often the father? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his strong arguments when he was in opposition in favour of giving the benefit to the mother rather than the tax allowance to the father? Is that still his view?

Mr. Field: Given the views of the hon. Gentleman, clearly when one sinner repents, there is great delight in heaven; when two repent, goodness knows the extent of the enjoyment there.

Social Security Tribunals

Mr. Watts: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on welfare reform relating to social security tribunals. [9042]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of social security. The Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system; set and publish demanding targets for the appeals service to meet; and report on the results.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for that full and honest reply. If we are to have a modern, efficient and fair system, does he agree that the Social Security Department needs to do more to ensure that people take up the benefits to which they are entitled? What action will his


Department take to ensure that all those who are eligible receive that to which they are entitled? Can he assure me that action will be taken as quickly as possible?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. We want to introduce a modern, efficient and effective social security system. We also want to ensure that everyone is aware of his or her rights and that the information they require to ensure that they take up their entitlement is available to them. We will debate those matters as the Social Security Bill goes through the House and I assure my hon. Friend that his points about take-up will be considered then.

New Deal for Lone Parents

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received from organisations representing lone parents on the impact of the welfare-to-work proposals announced in the Budget. [9043]

Ms Harman: The national lone parent organisations—Gingerbread and the National Council for One Parent Families—have warmly welcomed the new deal for lone parents, which we announced in the Budget. They are working with us on that programme as it gets under way.
Those organisations know, as we do, that lone parents want the opportunity to work to provide a better life for themselves and their children.

Mrs. Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm welcome given by lone parent organisations in my constituency for her new deal for lone parents which she launched in my constituency last week? Will she also consider, however, that some parents are still experiencing difficulties, namely, those who work anti-social hours and who therefore have to use informal kinds of child care, which at present are not eligible for the child care disregard? Will she take that into account when considering the effect of her scheme?

Ms Harman: Certainly, we shall need to look at the opportunities available for child care and combining it with work governed by inflexible hours. As my hon. Friend will know, we are establishing a national child care strategy which will help to improve the affordability of child care through the child care disregard. That strategy will also help the provision of child care through after-school clubs, which will be funded by the national midweek lottery, and the provision of more places in those clubs and at nurseries through the use of the single regeneration budget.
It is certainly true that in terms of child care provision for those who work ordinary hours or more flexible hours, Britain's children are Europe's poor relations, because lone mothers in other European countries are able to work to support themselves and their children, and thus enjoy a better standard of living than their counterparts in this country. The absence of appropriate child care in this country is one reason why we have twice as many lone parents dependent on benefit as our European colleagues, and half as many in work.

Benefit Entitlement (Young People)

Mr. Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to change benefit entitlement for those aged 16 to 25 years. [9049]

Mr. Keith Bradley: We want to ensure that all young people are in employment, training or education rather than dependent on benefit. That is why we are planning to replace youth training for 16 and 17-year-olds and enhance other opportunities for such young people. Through our proposals in the new deal, we shall be investing in the future of the young jobless aged 18 to 25, helping them to improve their employability and allowing them to participate fully in the labour market.

Mr. Baker: Can the Minister tell the House how young people who have been excluded from benefit for periods of up to two or four weeks and who are unable to find employment are expected to live during that time?

Mr. Bradley: Our priority is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to take up one of the four options available in the new deal. The arrangements will ensure that every support and opportunity is given to young people to take up one of the options. We shall pursue that with the Employment Service at that time to ensure that those opportunities are available to all 18 to 25-year-olds.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Can the Minister give an absolutely clear account to the House of how the additional £200 million welfare-to-work moneys will be spent—how much on the 18 to 25 programme, how much on the raising of the earnings disregard, how much on training child minders? There is considerable suspicion in many quarters that the Secretary of State for Social Security has already spent the available £200 million several times over.

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman may be muddled in his figures. The £200 million relates solely to lone parents and the help and support that they will be given. They will be given support by personal advisers, who will consider possibilities and career prospects for them. That money will help with child care, which is essential if lone mothers are to return to work, and all the other arrangements that will be necessary. The £200 million is in the first phase of our roll-out programme to help lone parents to get back to work.

Pensions

Mr. Quinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the availability of value-for-money pensions for those on low income. [9050]

Mr. Denham: Occupational schemes provide good-quality second pensions for half of all employees, but some personal pensions can be poor value for those on low incomes and with intermittent patterns of work. As part of our pensions review, we will consult widely on how best to take forward our proposals for stakeholder pensions to ensure that those without good-quality occupational pension schemes have access to secure, flexible, value-for-money second pensions.

Mr. Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the people of Scarborough, Whitby and the nation need is


a flexible second pension, which will mean that they need not rely on a means-tested pension when they reach old age, and that they can have a proper standard of living and afford a proper existence in retirement?

Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. His constituents and many other people throughout the country want an end to the situation whereby, if they join a pension scheme for a few years and then have to leave work, a high proportion—in some cases 50 per cent. or more—of their savings can be eaten up by fees and charges and is not available to provide a pension when they retire. If that happens, they are likely to be in poverty on retirement and the state is likely to have to meet, through means-tested benefits, the cost of providing them with a basic level of financial support. That is why I believe that our proposals are so important and long overdue.

Mortgage Interest Payments

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will change the system of benefit payments in respect of mortgage interest payments to monthly payments. [9051]

Mr. Keith Bradley: We are undertaking a general review of housing benefit and housing finance, but, at the present time, we have no plans to change those specific arrangements.

Mr. Pike: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although there may be no immediate plan to make a change, if he discusses the matter with benefit officers it will be found that there will be tremendous advantages in making 12 payments annually instead of 13 four-weekly payments, which cause great confusion to the recipient and to the bank or building society concerned?

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. As part of our general modernisation of social security, we shall study any method that streamlines the system. I am grateful for his comments on that matter, and can assure him that I will include it in the general review of which I have spoken.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the changes she has announced relating to the Child Support Agency. [9052]

Mr. Keith Bradley: As indicated when we recently debated the Child Support Agency, we intend to look closely at all aspects of the work of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective

service. Our key objectives for the agency during the coming year are to sort out cases faster, tackle the backlog of work and pursue fathers who avoid paying. With this in mind, an additional £15 million a year will be invested in the agency from 1998–99 specifically aimed at getting more absent parents to pay. This is expected to result in an extra £121 million in maintenance payments.
The Social Security Bill, introduced on 9 July 1997, also contains proposals to simplify and speed up the child support decision-making process.

Mr. Gibb: Can the Minister state precisely how the £15 million will yield the £120 million extra savings which he just said it would yield?

Mr. Bradley: That money will be used across the board to improve the efficiency of the Child Support Agency. We shall look particularly at out-of-hours work, including the telephone system, to try to ensure that people have better access to the agency so that their problems can be sorted out quickly and efficiently, and to ensure that parents pay the maintenance that they should pay.

Income Support

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were on income support at the latest available date. [9053]

Mr. Keith Bradley: In August 1996, nearly 5.6 million people were receiving income support, almost double the number in 1979. That is the legacy which we inherited from the previous Administration. We now have the opportunity for a fresh start. Most people who are capable of work want to work. We shall modernise the social security system to help them do just that.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that one thing the Government will have to do is ensure that work is provided? We cannot get work out of thin air. We can modernise and privatise those offices until the cows come home, but there are large areas of Britain—inner cities, old coalfield areas and other ex-industrial areas—where literally 30 or 40 per cent. of the people are without work. Many are on income support and not on unemployment benefit. The Government must turn their attention not only to welfare-to-work schemes but to providing work.

Mr. Bradley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As a Member of Parliament representing an inner city, I recognise the problems that he identifies. We need to re-skill, re-educate and ensure that real opportunities in employment are available throughout the country. We need to look particularly at areas that have been devastated by the previous Administration's policies.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Foreign Secretary has just answered a written question setting out the criteria that will be used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms. As you are aware, it is a matter of considerable importance, which has already been the subject of two speeches by the Foreign Secretary outside the House. Was it right for the right hon. Gentleman to announce a change of policy in that way? Is not it yet another example of the Government's contempt for Parliament? Is not smuggling the statement out three days before the recess just a crude attempt to deny the House an opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary on its content? Are you, too, powerless in the face of this further display of arrogance by this high-handed Government?

Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Having seen the press reports on that matter, particularly about third-world sales, I wanted to question the Foreign Secretary, not least because of the Indonesian situation, when the previous Government—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am interested not in speeches nor in issues of policy but in the point of order to me.

Mr. Alan Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. This subject was discussed at discursive length this morning in the comfortable ambience of the "Today" programme, whereas hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to question the Foreign Secretary on the economic, industrial and diplomatic consequences of a drastic change in policy, as this apparently is. Having inquired at the Foreign Office, we were told that no review was to be announced on the Floor of the House; we had to go to the Vote Office and get a copy of a written question—presumably written by the Foreign Office, but it was signed by the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and answered in a written text.

Several hon.Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am ready to respond to those points of order. First, however, I should like to hear what one or two other hon. Members have to say; I shall not hear points of order from throughout the House. I shall take two more points of order from the Labour Benches.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Chamber is becoming like an echo chamber, Madam Speaker. I used to make such points when the previous Government were in power. I, too, deplore the use of the media to get a message across, but I had a maxim about that. I used to say that if a Government spokesman announced a fresh policy on "Today" and repeated it on "Newsnight" the same night, it was policy.

Madam Speaker: I will take one more point of order from the Government side.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Having been in opposition for

so long, we sympathise with the members of the former Government, who are finding the painful experience of opposition so difficult. We indeed need statements from the Government, especially on the decision of the House of Lords last week, which again found that the former Home Secretary had broken the law. His comments must be treated as those of a recidivist.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am seriously interested in the two points of order that were raised originally. As the House knows, that is not a matter for the Speaker. When a Minister has information to give to the House, that is done by means of an oral statement or by means of a written answer to a question. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who raised the matter with me originally, were both senior Ministers in a former Government and know full well what the procedure is.
I mean to be helpful in the matter, in which I know that there is considerable interest. I remind the House that we have three hours on Wednesday morning for an Adjournment debate in which such matters can be raised, providing that Members are here and keen enough to do so.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall exchanges about "Yesterday in Parliament". You informed the House that you intended to write to the BBC. Obviously, you did so, but I do not expect that you received a positive response, bearing in mind the way in which the BBC is being run at present. Will you be good enough to tell us whether you have received a reply?

Madam Speaker: I have received a reply. I make no comment on it, but I have put copies of the correspondence in the Commons Library for hon. Members to see for themselves.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you saw the weekend papers or listened to the radio this morning. Announcements have been made in the press over the weekend, on the radio this morning and by way of a written answer to a parliamentary question, stating that Government policy on the roads programme has been changed, without a statement being made to the House. Have you received any approaches from the Government to make a statement about the points that have already been leaked to the media?

Mr. Robert Key: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is right. The Minister's office told hon. Members whose constituencies were affected that a package would be available in the Vote Office at 3.30 pm, and that hon. Members concerned would have letters on the Board at 3.30 pm. That has not happened, yet the press is in possession of the facts. Have you had any requests for a statement to be made on the matter?

Madam Speaker: I have had no requests for a statement to be made on the matter, but I know that there has been rather a full written answer, which


presumably is now available. I understand that hon. Members whose constituencies are geographically linked with the areas in question will have all the information. If that is not the case, I shall see to it as soon as I leave the Chair.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I cannot take the matter any further.

Mr. Chope: I have just been outside the Vote Office, trying to get information about the matter. Even a Labour Member who is extremely concerned about the decision on the Birmingham northern relief road cannot get access to his own Government's plans.

Madam Speaker: I have just said that as soon as I leave the Chair, I will make inquiries. It is my understanding that letters are available. I have another hour's duty to do in the Chair, but perhaps someone in authority will go and find out on my behalf precisely what the position is and report to me; otherwise I shall do so myself.

Finance Bill (Allocation of Time)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),

That the Report [24th July] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),

That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee [24 July]:

That—

(a) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, New Schedules, and amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 17, Clause 49, Clauses 18 to 23, Schedule 3, Clauses 24 to 34, Schedule 4, Clause 35, Schedule 5, Clause 36, Schedule 6, Clauses 37 to 41, Schedule 7, Clauses 42 to 48, Clauses 50 to 53 and Schedule 8;
(b) the allotted days which under the Order [14th July] are given to the proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
New Clauses, New Schedules and amendments to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 17 and Clause 49.
10.00 p.m.


Second day
Remaining proceedings on consideration
9.00 p.m.



Third Reading
10.00 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Finance Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

[Relevant documents: The Minutes of Evidence taken before the Treasury Committee on Monday 21st July, Tuesday 22nd July and Wednesday 23rd July (HC169-i to iii.]

Not amended (in the Committee), and as amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 4

LOW CANCER-RISK PART-RENEWABLE BLENDED DIESEL

'.—(1) After section 1 of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 (Hydrocarbon oil) there shall be inserted the following section—
Low cancer-risk part-renewable blended diesel
1A.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 6 (Excise duty on hydrocarbon oil) and section 11 (Rebate on heavy oil) of this Act, in respect of low cancer-risk part-renewable blended diesel—

(a) the rate of duty for the purposes of section 6 shall be £0.3758 a litre; and
(b) the rebate of duty for the purposes of section 11 shall be £0.0258 a litre less than the rate at which the duty is for the time being chargeable.

(2) For the purposes of this Act 'low cancer-risk part-renewable blended diesel' means fuel of the description in Schedule 2B to this Act.
(2) After Schedule 2 to that Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE 2B

LOW CANCER-RISK PART-RENEWABLE BLENDED DIESEL

1. Low cancer-risk part-renewable blended diesel is fuel which consists of—

(a) a blend of heavy oil containing not less than 22 per cent. by volume of kerosene which when blended conforms to the specification in paragraph 2; and
(b) not less than 3.8 per cent. and not more than 15.0 per cent. by volume of methylester which is derived from rapeseed oil which contains not more than 0.02 per cent. by weight of free glycerine and which conforms to such other specifications as the Commissioners may direct.

2. The specification referred to in paragraph 1 is a blend of heavy oil—

(a) of which not less than 60 per cent. by volume and not more than 72 per cent. by volume distils at a temperature of 250°C;
(b) of which not less than 90 per cent. by volume distils at a temperature of 290°C;
(c) which has a density of 15°C of not less than 813 kilograms per cubic metre and not more than 819 kilograms per cubic metre;
(d) which has a minimum cetane number of 49;
(e) which contains not more than 0.0015 per cent. by weight of sulphur;
(f) which contains not more than 11.25 per cent. by volume of aromatic hydrocarbons and not more than 0.05 per cent. by volume of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (containing three or more carbon rings); and
(g) which conforms to such other specifications as the Commissioners may direct."

(3) This section shall come into force on such day as the Commissioners of Customs and Excise may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'—[Sir Michael Spicer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Michael Spicer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 33, in clause 11, page 7, line 26, at end insert—

'(4A) After section 6(2) of the 1979 Act, there is inserted—

"(2A) The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for duty of excise on hydrocarbon oil to be charged at a lower rate than that specified in subsection (1) above in rural areas; but no rate lower than that in force on 1st July 1997 may be specified under the terms of this subsection.
(2B) An order made under section (2A) above shall be laid before Parliament in draft and approved by resolution of each House before being made.".'.

No. 26, in page 7, line 28, leave out '2nd July' and insert '25th November'.

Sir Michael Spicer: To be completely safe, I must say that I am president of the Association of Electricity Producers, although that is a very indirect interest. In fact, I have no interest relevant to the new clause. I tabled the new clause on behalf of a constituent and it is the second time that I have raised the matter on behalf of that constituent.
The purpose of the new clause, which is quite long, is to give fuels whose fumes can create cancer the treatment that exists in tax law for fuels that produce high-sulphur emissions or those that produce heavy carbon dioxide emissions. The fume dealt with in the new clause is produced by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, known as PAH. Can the Government confirm that the PAH content of fuel emissions is cancerous in its effects? There have been many studies of those emissions and the clear indication is that they are cancerous, but it would be good to have confirmation from the Government that that is the case.
I am very much aware that no Government would agree to a new clause that was specific to any company's interest; that would be quite wrong and would involve hybridity. The new clause, however, has been couched precisely with that point in mind and would have a completely generic application if accepted by the House. The new clause deals with a process that blends refined rapeseed oil with low-sulphur diesel. That generic technique, which is now well established and can be used by anybody who wishes to do so, would, because it meets a gamut of objectives in terms of cleaner air, benefit from the new clause.
Are there other ways in which to achieve those objectives? During points of order, we heard that the Government, on the "Today" programme, said that their way in which to deal with road pollutants was not to build any more roads. Presumably, if we did not have roads, we could not have cars. That seemed to be the way in which they intended to deal with these problems. The new clause is another way, and it is well established.
Clean air objectives have been dealt with through the tax system. The previous Finance Bill introduced the inducement to reduce high-sulphur fuels, and there is a discriminatory tax arrangement designed with that in mind. If the Government are serious in their attempts to reduce pollutants from fuels, they should give some priority to dealing with emissions that may be cancerous.
Do the Government accept that the PAH content in fuel is cancer bearing? Will they confirm the assurance given by the previous Administration, that there would be a full review of all detrimental emissions from fuels and that a full review would be made of the Government's approach to noxious emissions? I hope that we shall not end up with some emissions being dealt with through the tax system while other more dangerous emissions are ignored.
As we have used the tax system in the past to deal with the problem, there is an onus on the Government to explain carefully, if they decide not to accept the new clause, what they intend to do about dangerous emissions and what their general policy is on the taxation of noxious emissions. Do they accept that a distortion in the system that produces tax disadvantages for certain types of emission and not for others is the correct way in which to proceed?

Mr. John Swinney: I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer); I wish to take up amendment No. 33, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan). The amendment is designed to provide a mechanism to enable the Government to vary the proposed increase in petrol duty, to compensate for the increased costs that will be suffered by those who live in rural areas. The issue has already been discussed, but it is important that the Government should have the opportunity once again to reflect on the proposals that are set out in the amendment.
The costs of the additional increase in petrol duty introduced by the Budget would increase the burden on those who live in rural areas by about £60 a year. That is on top of the £300-a-year increase that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, through their commitment to an increase in petrol duty by an additional 5 per cent. on top of inflation.
The new Labour Government have added to that burden, and we seek through amendment No. 33 to encourage the Government to take a step back from the previous commitment. There is an undeniable case that rural areas are disadvantaged in this instance, and I shall provide some information on the subject.
The Highlands and Islands development board, in one of its publications in 1987, argued that
a car in a remote area may be both highly unreliable and barely affordable but nevertheless essential to survival and any households without a car in remote areas, must be at a severe disadvantage.
The study went on to examine the greater dependency of people in rural areas on the use of a car. It showed that on average 57.5 per cent. of households in Scotland had access to a car, whereas in the highlands and islands, which is the principal rural area in Scotland, the average was 68.5 per cent. It was 68.3 per cent. in Grampian and more than 70 per cent. in the northern isles.
It is interesting to contrast those figures with the dependence on and utilisation of public transport in rural areas. The contrast makes the burden clear. It is estimated that in the United Kingdom 3.66 per cent. of the population travel to work by train and 9.85 per cent. travel to work by bus. In the highlands and islands, 6.6 per cent. travel by bus and 0.65 per cent. by train. Access to public transport in rural areas is not as good or convenient as in city and urban communities. It is clear that in rural areas the burden of petrol duty is much greater than elsewhere, and dependence on the car is much more significant in all respects.
Over the weekend, I conducted a number of surgeries in the highland Perthshire area of my large rural constituency. Complaints and problems were brought to my attention by those who were seeking to use public services such as nursery education and primary school facilities, or other public services that involved substantial car journeys.
One lady was contemplating travelling 300 miles each week to take her young child to a nursery in Dunkeld. The increased burden that will be brought about by the proposed increase in duty will be formidable for that lady. Given the impact of increased transport costs in rural areas, people who live there are faced with a considerable burden. In many constituencies in the north of Scotland, local businesses, post offices, general stores and other small shops supporting life in the rural areas are haemorrhaging away, because of the spiralling costs of obtaining produce and supplies for sale.
The Government have suggested that the increase in petrol duty is being imposed on the wisest advice in respect of the environment. Certainly, travelling around London it is clear to me that there is a huge environmental problem caused by the over-use of cars and by the congestion that they cause. It is, however, unfortunate that the Government have tried to justify the increase in petrol prices on environmental grounds. It will punish rural areas even though it is dressed up as an environmental measure.
The Government need to pursue a long-term environmental strategy. Indeed, some of its details may have been announced by the Deputy Prime Minister during the past few minutes—who knows? Such a strategy will have to tackle congestion, among other issues, but it must not do so at the expense of fragile rural areas, not just in Scotland, but in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Petrol prices are already high in those areas.
My last piece of evidence comes from an analysis published in the Petroleum Times Energy Report, which shows that the average price per litre of unleaded petrol in Scotland was 61.76p in June 1997; whereas the average price in England was 58.6p. That clear disparity of price is only exacerbated by the heavier dependence in rural areas on the use of the car. I urge the Government at this late stage in the passage of the Finance Bill to think again about that measure because of the damage that it will undeniably do to already fragile rural communities.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: rose—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Would it be in order, Madam Speaker, for me to speak at this point?

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In no way do I want to inhibit my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who I know has other points to make, just as he did in Committee.
I want to speak to the amendment in my name, No. 26, which we were not able to debate in Committee because of the operation of the guillotine. We did touch on the increase in hydrocarbon duty—but not on the biggest effect that it will have on people in business: the fact that these large increases are to be introduced not from the usual date of the Budget, which is November, but from 2 July. That represents an extra five months' duty; it went partly unnoticed at the time of the Budget, but it has certainly been noticed by the victims of that large tax increase in the weeks since.
The fact is that, on the day of the Budget, the Chancellor imposed a 4p-a-litre tax increase on all who use road fuel—for those still used to gallons, that means an 18p-a-gallon increase. That represents a 6 per cent. increase above and beyond the rate of inflation, which is higher than what had been planned by the previous Government.
When we were in government, we signalled that there would be an annual real increase in duties, to show what our intentions were. We did so for environmental reasons, and to give the automobile industry a chance to design fuel-efficient engines and equipment to meet the challenge of extra hydrocarbon duties.
Without any warning or mention in the manifesto, however, the new Government have increased petrol and diesel duty by 6 per cent. in real terms; most significantly, they have brought forward the increase by five months. Taken together, those two factors will raise an extra £730 million this year. The Government have, without warning, imposed a three quarters of a billion pounds extra tax increase through that petrol and diesel duty hike.
Since Budget day, there has been an immediate increase for all motorists. I emphasise the word "immediate" and shall return to it, to contrast it with a number of relief measures that the Government have carefully postponed. All the pain is immediate, while some of the relief is delayed. This tax increase affects not only all motorists but anyone who relies on transport of any sort. I shall deal with the effect on rural areas in a moment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the previous Government were very keen to persuade motorists to use their cars less, and that their strategy was to increase fuel duties? If he does not agree with such increases, how does he suggest that we persuade the world to stop global warming and achieve the targets for reducing CO2, emissions?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter which goes a little wide of the debate. I would love to engage with him in a wider environmental debate, but that would be out of order. People are indeed fairly attached to their cars. There is much evidence that increases in fuel duties do not necessarily lead people to switch to public transport, which is perhaps what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question. The point that I am making, and with which I do not think the hon. Gentleman would disagree, is that yes, we did have a policy of increasing fuel duty, but the reason why the new Government have raised the rate of increase and brought it forward by five months has less to do with environmental aims than with raising money.
The effect of the increase on rural areas was outlined by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), and I agree with much of what he said. I represent a rural

area, and a car is frequently not a luxury but a necessity for people living there. We must remember that not only cars but trains and buses will be affected by the increase in duty—in other words, public transport will also be hit. I know from first-hand experience in my constituency that many people are already regretting taking at face value Labour's promise, made during the election campaign, not to raise taxes.
The big and immediate effect of the increase is on transport, but domestic heating will also be affected. The Government have made much of the fact that they are cutting the rate of VAT on domestic fuel by 3 per cent., but the timing is interesting. That cut, modest as it is, does not come into effect until September. We discovered in Committee that there is a significant clawback of that benefit from low-income groups in particular—there will be a lower uprating of pensions and other benefits next April because of the cut in VAT. The modest benefit does not come into effect until September; why, therefore, have the Government brought forward to the date of the Budget itself the increase on heating oil which will affect many of the same people?
In summary, people are already being affected by many of the tax increases introduced by the Chancellor on Budget day. He announced 17 tax rises in general, but only one was promised in the manifesto. He did indeed promise us a windfall tax when in opposition, but when he was making plans for the windfall tax, he must have been making plans for the other 16 tax increases, including this huge extra burden on motorists and others.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many of the previous Government's 22 tax rises were in the 1992 Conservative party manifesto?

4 pm

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We dispute the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic in calculating 22 tax rises. He alleges that there were 22 tax rises during our five years in government, but perhaps he would like to reflect on the fact that, in their first four or five weeks, the Labour Government have introduced 17 tax rises. If they continue at that rate, we shall be well into three figures by the next general election.
The Prime Minister, before the general election, promised not to increase tax. On 21 September 1996, his exact words were:
We've no plans to increase tax at all".
More recently—in January 1997—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
It's my aim to get the burden down for ordinary people".
The Chancellor has since discovered that ordinary people use transport. Even if people do not use their own car, they use public transport, and both forms of transportation have been affected by the Government's tax increases. Many people heat their homes with oil, and many have pensions—which I shall not elaborate on now, because I realise that we shall debate that issue tomorrow. So-called ordinary people have been hit by 17 tax increases.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a danger of the


economy overheating and that, given that danger, the fuel tax is very welcome within the Budget's balanced portfolio of changes? Will he tell the House what changes, if any, the Conservatives would have made to fuel duty?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I tell the hon. Gentleman straight that we would not have produced this Budget and, therefore, would not have introduced the huge extra increase in duty on heating oil, petrol and diesel. If he is right and the economy is overheating—the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it is—it is all the more surprising that the Chancellor did not try, as a general Budget strategy, to take money directly out of consumer expenditure. We know—as does the hon. Gentleman, because he was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill—that the Chancellor's main tax-raising measure affected not current consumer expenditure but pension funds, thereby hitting long-term savings and not current consumer expenditure. If reducing such expenditure was the Chancellor's strategy, he went about accomplishing it in a pretty stupid way.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): The right hon. Gentleman has been going on about heating oil and price increases. Does he accept that kerosene is the predominant heating oil, and that the Budget did not increase excise duty on it?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No; the hon. Lady is a little out of date. Kerosene—or paraffin, as it is sometimes called—is no longer the predominant heating fuel of those on benefits. Just as many of them, if not more, use heating oil for heating their hot water or—with central heating—their homes. As from Budget day, the duty was increased. The hon. Lady has not answered the curious conundrum whereby she is happy to delay until September the VAT reduction on domestic fuel, whereas the Chancellor made the duty increase on heating oil effective on Budget day—thereby emphasising a point that I have already made.

Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bennett: Are not those crocodile tears? How many people on low incomes does the right hon. Gentleman suggest are running central heating at this time of year? Does not he expect most of them to turn off their central heating system between now and September?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I do. However, it may come as news to the hon. Gentleman that many people use the same fuel for heating water. They take baths, they wash their hands and they heat water for cooking. I am amazed by the ignorance sometimes displayed by Labour Members about how so-called ordinary people live. All the extra costs affect people now. As we sit in the Chamber, the additional tax on fuel is affecting our constituents, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is apparently unaware of that.
The tax increase on petrol, diesel and various oils does not just affect individuals; it is a massive extra cost to industry. Industry is the main user of diesel. Most lorries,

buses and trains use diesel, which has increased in price by more than 9 per cent. Directly or indirectly, that affects the price of just about everything that is transported. It is a big extra industrial cost, as well as affecting individuals who use buses and trains. It also affects competitiveness. We have been promised a White Paper, a review or discussion document about competitiveness in the British economy. The Government could have made a start by not increasing the burden on the competitive sector of the economy through large tax increases.
The trade sector of the economy has been most squeezed since the election as it is exposed to international competition. In particular, the export industries and the manufacturing sector have been hit by the strength of the pound. They will also suffer most from a direct tax on one of their most important raw materials. That has no doubt contributed to stock market movements since the Budget. Shares in the financial and banking sectors, the retail sector and importers have increased in value, while those in manufacturing industry, the engineering sector and exporters are relatively low, as those industries have been hit by the Chancellor's monetary policies and the tax rises since Budget day.
There is also a general effect on inflation and the retail prices index. That further twist to inflation has not yet been reflected in the RPI. However, between the date of the election and now there has been an increase in the actual or signalled rate of inflation. That is hardly surprising, as one of the first things that the Chancellor did in office was to weaken his inflation target. We had a target of 2½ per cent. a year or less. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the previous Chancellor, had met that target by the time we left office. The incoming Chancellor weakened the target to 2½ per cent. plus or minus 1 per cent. That sent a signal to the world that he would tolerate higher inflation. In addition, he failed to damp down any consumer boom that he identified in the economy—another missed opportunity—and increased inflation by his action in the Budget. The duty increase has still to feed through into the economy.

Jacqui Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not the toughness of the inflation target that is most important, but the toughness of the action taken to achieve it, and that in many ways my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already shown his willingness to take tough action, particularly through the independence that he has given the Bank of England in monetary matters?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I quite agree with the hon. Lady that it is no good having a target unless one is tough about meeting it. Having set a looser inflation target, the Chancellor signalled that he would be rather relaxed in his efforts to meet it by producing an inflationary Budget. The figures are quite eloquent. A report in the Financial Times says that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the Budget will
add a further 0.79 percentage points to the 'all-items' retail price index".
The same article points out that the last Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe added only 0.39 percentage points to the index. So there we have it. The Chancellor not only weakened his target, but set about breaching it.
The Budget forecasts in the Red Book project a breach of the inflation target. The Chancellor accepts in his arithmetic that he will not—

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a judicious blend of fiscal and monetary policy is needed to meet the inflation target? Relying purely on fiscal policy could advance a possible recession, by creating the need to increase interest rates too high for the demand in the economy. We are heading in that direction.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not a Keynsian, but I accept that fiscal policy has a part to play. It should not work in the opposite direction to monetary policy. Although interest rates should bear the main strain of keeping inflation under control, the lesson from countries such as Germany is that success comes from having a low-inflation culture, in which all the levers of economic management—fiscal policy and monetary policy—point in the same direction. We have not achieved that under the new Government. The separation of fiscal policy, which remains in the Treasury, from monetary policy, which now goes to the Bank of England, has within it the seeds of a considerable bust-up. The Budget was not in tune with the inflation target laid down by the Chancellor, even though—I repeat—that target is looser than the one that he inherited.
My concluding point concerns the effects on public services of the tax increase, particularly the fact that it is being brought forward by five months. From the day of the Budget, all services that use transport will cost more. There is a 4p-a-litre increase for all police cars, all ambulances, all school buses, all meals on wheels, the national health service and social services. All those services are already experiencing higher costs. There is no extra money for that. The Chancellor has almost made a fetish of the fact that his cash targets remain the same. It is true that, for the financial year starting next April, he has raided the reserve to allocate some more money to two items of public expenditure—education and health—but there is nothing for law and order, local government or any other public services. For the current financial year, which ends next March, there is not a penny piece of extra public money to fund services, even though—again, this is all in the Red Book—they face the inflationary consequences of the Budget.

Mr. Quentin Davies: My right hon. Friend is touching on an important point. Is there not a serious danger of the public being bamboozled? They have been led to believe that the increases from the contingency reserve for health and education next year will buy more teachers, doctors or operations, adding to the output of those public services. It has not been explained to the public that a significant portion of that money will go on increased fuel costs and the consequences of the minimum wage—costs imposed on those services by the Government.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend puts it very well. What the Chancellor has done—the fuel increases are just one part—is to increase the cost of all public services while providing no extra money. That is a real expenditure reduction, which is already occurring.
The House should accept not just my word but that of the House of Commons Library, which has produced some very interesting figures that show that there is a real public expenditure reduction of £3 billion in the current financial year, rising to £5.25 billion next year. That is because of the extra inflation that the Chancellor is now projecting—part of which he has caused as a result of the Budget—which is colliding with the fact that there is no extra cash.

Dr. Rudi Vis: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the International Monetary Fund report concerning the Budget?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is nothing that I would like to do more, but I do not know whether the Chair would allow such a diversion into the IMF report. I shall just say that the IMF spotted the fact that we have incipient overheating on our hands, yet the Chancellor chose not to use the Budget as an opportunity to correct that through fiscal tightening. To go on a little from the IMF report, the only way in which he did attack consumers directly was in the most inflationary way possible, by the immediate increases in indirect taxation. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will derive much comfort from the IMF report to counter what I have just described.
There we have it. We saw on Budget day a large and immediate tax increase levied on motorists of all sorts, especially those in rural areas, who will have to bear the increase without any way of switching to other forms of transport—notwithstanding the fact that many of the alternative forms of transport, such as buses and trains, are also hit by the duty increase.
We have seen how the increase works through into higher industrial costs and damages competitiveness, especially in the sector most exposed to world competition, which is trying to export. We have also demonstrated that, by feeding through into general inflation in the public services, unmatched by any extra cash to compensate, the increase will have a highly damaging effect on public expenditure in the years ahead.
For all those reasons, I invite the House to support amendment No. 26, which seeks at least to limit the damage, by pushing back to November the increase in hydrocarbon duties. The amendment will not halt the damage completely, but at least it will bring some respite to the hard-hit sectors that are the first but not the only victims of the new Labour Government.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I wish to speak to amendment No. 26, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and relates to the timing of the fuel duty increases. They would, of course, have been enacted in November, rather than almost five months earlier in the July Budget. A 6 per cent. increase in fuel duties introduced five months early probably amounts to an increase of about 7 or 8 per cent. in real terms on a year-on-year basis. That is a pretty swingeing increase in fuel duties in one year.
The increases hit particularly those in rural areas and, more particularly still, poor people in rural areas who have to rely on their cars to obtain the absolute necessities of life at, for example, the post office or their local doctor's surgery. Those who are relatively affluent will not be deterred from using their cars.
The Government should be implementing a mixture of "carrot" and "stick" measures. They should be trying to encourage people through fiscal measures such as those in clause 11—some of which are to be welcomed, as I shall briefly explain—as well as encouraging people and heavy goods on to public transport.
In my constituency, we have opened two rural stations and I am battling to open a third. We should press for such measures to encourage the use of public transport. Another initiative in my constituency is a community bus. The scheme is organised by the community and funded by various Government bodies and through fund raising. The bus is driven by a rota of volunteers, and its schedule is tailored to the needs of the community. The scheme has expanded and now runs three or four buses, having started with one. Sadly, the swingeing increase in fuel duty will increase the scheme's running costs. I ask the Financial Secretary to exempt good community schemes from future increases in fuel duty or allow them to claim a rebate, because we should encourage them.
The increase in fuel duty is 6 per cent. in real terms, or 6 per cent. plus inflation. If we assume that the rate of inflation over the longer term is some 3 per cent., the increase is some 9 per cent. That means that fuel duties will double, in nominal terms, in seven years; that is a swingeing increase. I urge the Financial Secretary to consider the effect that the increase will have on poor people, especially those in rural areas.
As I have said, I welcome some aspects of clause 11, especially the encouragement of ultra-low-sulphur diesel. Through fiscal and other measures, we should be able to encourage—in a reasonably short time—all diesel users, including heavy goods vehicle drivers and car drivers, to switch to low-sulphur diesel. We all know the effects of the sulphur pollution that belches from the back of unserviced HGVs and cars, and it is possible to see the particulates and the white smoke and to smell the sulphur. We should encourage a universal switch to ultra-low-sulphur diesel, through fiscal measures, as we did with unleaded petrol. Ten years ago, the market for unleaded petrol was around 10 per cent. Today, it is some 90 per cent.
There is now no case for super-unleaded petrol, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) knows because he was a member of the Environment Select Committee which considered it. An environmentally friendly clause 11 would have introduced a differential in the rate of duty on ordinary unleaded petrol compared with super-unleaded petrol. Such a measure could be considered for a future Budget.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned the inflationary effect of clause 11. One reason behind amendment No. 26—to delay the increase in fuel duty—was to try to mitigate that effect. The increase in fuel duty will have an effect on the price of all service and delivery goods. Huge numbers of motor cars, vans and HGVs will experience an increase in costs. Whether that is inflationary in the long or short term, when it eventually feeds through into the economy, is a matter for speculation. The notes on clauses suggest that the measure, which will raise some £300 million extra, will push inflation up in the short term by 0.25 per cent., but if duty goes up year on year, the cumulative inflationary effect will be much greater. That must be taken into account.
It is all very well to tax the motorist out of existence, but certain sectors of society will be especially adversely affected, including the poor in rural areas. It is all very well for an urban-dominated Government to ignore those people, but those who live in rural areas are often some of the poorest in the land. They depend on their motor cars as a necessity and the Government have a duty to consider their plight in future Budgets.

Mr. Swinney: The previous Government increased petrol duty, which had a damaging effect on rural communities. Did the hon. Gentleman oppose that?

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. He is probably talking about Norman Lamont's 1992 Budget. If he will clarify his question, I will answer it.

Mr. Swinney: The previous Government increased petrol duty by 5 per cent. over and above the inflation rate. The present Government have compounded that by increasing it by a further 1 per cent. The measure introduced by the last Government had a very damaging effect on rural areas.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: We can argue about semantics. We raised the duty by 5 per cent. The figure is now 6 per cent., but, in real terms, it is up to between 7.5 and 8 per cent., and each percentage rise causes a little more damage. I ask the Government to consider the effect that is caused over a period. This is a fairly swingeing increase—but I do not want to be provoked into speaking at length.
The Government could consider innovative ways of encouraging people to use public transport, on a "carrot" rather than a "stick" basis. In any of our major cities, queues of cars with only one occupant belch out smoke from unwarmed engines. Fiscal measures to encourage people to share cars could be introduced, along with a host of measures to encourage the return of heavier goods to the railways.
Some innovative suggestions have been made. Perhaps we could give special fiscal concessions to the drivers of lorries that, by means of special wheels, can go straight from the roads and on to the railways without the need for cross-handling of goods. I have seen that working effectively in north America. There could be a uniform business rate holiday for firms that were prepared to sign a 10-year contract providing for all their heavy goods to be transported on the railways instead of the roads. I should be happy to write to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or to the Minister of Transport, describing some of the suggestions that have been made.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that, in my constituency, most people with low incomes do not use cars at all, but depend on public transport. The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive provides free transport for pensioners and disabled people who require it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady's area must be very different from mine. In many small villages in my area there is only one bus a week, and anyone with an urgent appointment with the doctor or an urgent need to claim benefit would still be waiting.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Has my hon. Friend taken account of the fact that, as a result of the Budget, the cost


of bus services will rise? The extra fuel increase must be borne not just by private motorists—who, of course, are of no concern to Labour Members—but by bus companies and other operators. They will have to raise their prices, which will drive the hon. Lady's constituents and others off the buses. Either they will be unable to travel at all or they will have to try to obtain lifts in private cars.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I agree. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech, if public service costs are to be increased without there being a commensurate increase in public sector grant, the cost will inevitably fall on the consumer.
One of my predilections is listening to Jimmy Young on the way from my constituency to London. Anyone who listened to his programme this morning will have heard people telephoning the programme saying they did not use public transport because of the cost. One lady who lived in Edgware, or some such London borough, tried to give up using her car for a month, but had to start using it again because the cost of public transport was even higher than that of the car. How daft can the Government get?
I do not want to be further provoked into making a long speech. I have made my points, and I hope that the Government will consider them carefully when drawing up next year's Budget.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I was struck by the extraordinary way in which the Government are trying to justify this increase in duty. They seem to be using two arguments, and they are in a frightful muddle.
The first argument was that it was a good idea to take the opportunity of the Budget to increase consumption taxes. Indeed, if consumption is rising at an unsustainable rate and the economy is in danger of overheating—the analysis made by the Government in their Red Book—it might be sensible to take advantage of a Budget to reduce consumption spending. The Government have demonstrated, however, that that argument is not available to them because the major tax rises that they introduced were, first, on companies and the corporate sector—the windfall tax—and, secondly, on savings, with the abolition of the dividend tax credit, which will have exactly the opposite effect in so far as it reduces the return on savings—and, thus, the inducement to save—and so increases consumption. People will save less and spend a greater proportion of their disposable income.
4.30 pm
A Government who tax savings cannot coherently argue in the same Budget and Finance Bill that the increase on tax on hydrocarbon fuels is a measure to reduce consumption. If there were not already sufficient inconsistency between that argument and the attack on savings through the abolition of the dividend tax credit, the Government are at the same time reducing value added tax on domestic fuel. So they are reducing a consumption tax on a hydrocarbon fuel with one hand, while increasing a consumption tax on such a fuel with the other. There is no rhyme or reason about this Government and this measure.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason for that inconsistency is wanting, on the one hand, to stop or limit the environmental damage

caused by exhaust fumes and the use of cars and, on the other, to help poor, elderly people to keep warm and to stop them dying of hypothermia during the winter? There is no inconsistency from our point of view.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I have dealt with one inconsistency—that of claiming that it is necessary to reduce consumption through this increase in tax on hydrocarbon fuels while increasing consumption spending by a slightly greater reduction in another tax on another set of hydrocarbon fuels and, at the same time, attacking savings to a considerable degree, which will only reduce the savings ratio and increase consumption.
There is no rhyme or reason. No doubt that is why the hon. Gentleman did not produce that argument in his intervention. He obviously agrees with me that the Government cannot credibly use that argument because they are in a state of complete contradiction over it. So he used the other argument, which I was coming to—environmentalism.
It is said that it is environmentally friendly to increase carbon taxes because that reduces emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and, indeed, of other substances, some of which might be toxic. I am very much in favour of using taxes to reduce the ill effects of environmental pollution. That is a good principle. It was taken a long way, under the distinguished period in office of the previous Administration, by a distinguished Secretary of State for the Environment.
Nevertheless, there seems to be another major confusion in the Government's attitude. This tax is being increased and there are attempts to use the tax system to push people to use diesel fuel. As has been said, using the tax system to increase the relative inducement to consumers to go for unleaded fuel has brought about the perversity of super-unleaded petrol, which contains a high element of benzene, which is a nasty carcinogen. That is hardly an environmentally friendly consequence of using the tax system to try to bias consumers' choice of petrol. There are the references to diesel, but there is increasing evidence that the effects of diesel fuel use are environmentally harmful, in that fine particles of diesel fuel in the atmosphere are absorbed through the lungs into the system and never really discharged. Medical evidence therefore suggests that, from the environmental or public health viewpoint, it is not a terribly clever idea to increase diesel consumption.
For the Government to justify bringing forward taxes on environmental grounds, we need a reasoned, coherent and systematic account of how the Government believe public health is negatively impacted by the use of different hydrocarbon fuels and what set of tax measures is likely to produce the optimal use of such fuels. We have not had that; we have had only piecemeal measures, justified by a mixture of electoral demagogy and last-minute financial pressures. Those measures are then masked by high-sounding general principles relating to the environment or to the fiscal management of demand in the economy. Those arguments are completely bogus and those principles are not being coherently or honestly applied.

Mr. Bennett: Did the hon. Gentleman make that criticism of the previous Government?

Mr. Davies: I have indeed made my points about benzene in super-unleaded fuel and the environmental


impact of diesel fuel on a number of occasions, in the House and in Committee, under both the current Administration and the previous Administration. With the consent of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I intend to go on making these points until I feel that the Administration are listening to them. I hope that they will be addressed. They deserve to be addressed and I hope that the Financial Secretary will address them when she replies to the debate, because they go to the heart of the rationale of the new clause.
I represent a rural constituency—Grantham and Stamford, which is a large part of south Lincolnshire—and I am intensely conscious of the disproportionate burden placed on rural populations by any increase in hydrocarbon duties. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that not only does it place a burden on people in the conduct of their private lives—going to school or to the doctor—but it places a burden on employment by increasing the costs of employment. One of the positive features of the modern world is greater mobility. Because they have cars, people can now take jobs not merely within walking or bicycling distance, as was the case some 50 years ago, but within a range of 10, 15 or 20 miles, depending on how good the road system is. That must be good for the economy, because it maximises the opportunity to use people's talents in the economy; and it is good for individuals, because they have a wider range of job opportunities. Anything that increases the costs of mobility reduces that mobility, as night follows day. One must be conscious of that.
Against all that, I accept entirely the environmental arguments. There is a double environmental argument relating to hydrocarbon fuels: they are non-renewable and it is sensible, over time, to try to economise in their use; and there are serious issues relating to atmospheric pollution and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Mr. Geraint Davies: It seems that the hon. Gentleman's argument is leading towards a suggestion that any state intervention through charging excise duty on fuel is a fundamental constraint on freedom. He seemed to be proposing that we should cut all tax on fuel to enable people to make the maximum use of motor vehicles across Britain, without any limit, in the name of freedom. He has made only a passing reference to the environment.
Where does the hon. Gentleman stand? Does he not agree that when the Government consider public opinion, a balance must be struck? I believe that the Government have struck the right balance in favour of public opinion.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions on my contributions, and I have listened to a number of them in Committee. Most of them are attempts to caricature my position, but that particular intervention does not caricature it; indeed, it does not relate to my remarks at all. Under no circumstances did I take any of the lines that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to me.
I have always argued that a balance must be struck. I am extremely conscious of the burden placed on my constituents by any hydrocarbon fuel duties. On the other

hand, as I have now had to repeat several times during my speech, as a result of interventions, I recognise a strong environmental case for hydrocarbon duties, which take a disproportionately high share of total consumption taxes. If I did not believe that, they should not be subject to excise duties at all, but simply to VAT. We have singled out those fuels, together with alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for special forms of consumption tax. I accept that principle, which was also accepted by the previous Government.
If we are to strike the correct balance, it is important that the Government should set out the parameters of the equation. They should explain what they are specifically trying to achieve in terms of the environmental impact of the taxes and, therefore, what levels of tax are appropriate for particular types of hydrocarbon fuel. That argument has not been made.
The Government seem to govern us from watertight compartments. When Treasury Ministers defend the hydrocarbon duties they do not engage with the environmental arguments that are used to justify, spuriously, the fiscal measures introduced. That is not good enough.
If the public are to be asked to pay a disproportionate burden of taxation through hydrocarbon duties, they are entitled to be given a clear and coherent account from the Government of the exact environmental purpose of those taxes. They should inform the public how those hydrocarbon fuels have been selected for tax with regard to their particular environmental attributes, positive or negative.

Dawn Primarolo: The increase in hydrocarbon taxes signals the Government's commitment to the environment. It is intended to raise sufficient revenue and achieve sustainable economic growth while protecting the environment.
To answer the point raised specifically raised by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), that duty is designed to ensure that road users cover the economic costs that they impose as well as help to reduce harmful emissions. In particular, the duty will help to achieve the target that the Government have set themselves to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. The measure will contribute 2.5 million tonnes towards that target.
To pick up on the points raised by the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), which relate to new clause 4, this Government, in common with the previous Government, must continue to make assessments of the fuels used and their polluting nature. We must judge the impact of those fuels on health and the environment. The Government must consider the mechanisms available to them to encourage greater fuel efficiency and, therefore, less pollution.

Sir Michael Spicer: I am glad to hear what the Minister has said in answer to the points raised by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about a thorough, comprehensive review. If that is what is proposed, what would be the deadline for such a report and when would it be published? In the absence of such studies, how can the hon. Lady say that the new tax has a specific relationship either to economic costs, towards which, as she knows, the motorist pays far more than he gets back, or environmental costs?

Dawn Primarolo: The previous Government's use of hydrocarbon taxes showed that they led to an increase in efficiency and a reduction in pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the debate surrounding leaded and unleaded fuel and the successful strategy of using the tax system to encourage the growth in unleaded fuel consumption.
This is the second year in which the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has tabled such a new clause. It represents special pleading on behalf of a single product, ecodiesel. As he has already said, he is using the clause as a means of discovering the extent of the Government's intentions. Although we appreciate the environmental argument for blended diesel fuels, we took full account of the available products when setting the rate for the ultra-low-sulphur diesel. The problem is that if new clause 4 were accepted, it would create a need for a product that would have to be imported. The balance we have struck on the ultra-low-sulphur diesel has the advantage that the current definition of such a fuel means that the United Kingdom industry could immediately produce such oil if it chose to do so.
The hon. Gentleman has also asked about the Government's intentions. I am afraid that there are no definitive studies that can tell us about the exact polluting properties of all the fuels. Our knowledge of them continues to develop in line with scientific knowledge. We will, however, continue to review the case for tax incentives for environmentally friendly fuels, in line with our statement of environmental intent which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Budget. Such assessment will continue and, each year, the Government will make a judgment on how best to use the carrot-and-stick approach, as described by the hon. Member for Cotswold, to enhance and develop fuel efficiency and to protect the environment.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was a little confused in his arguments about the environment. Information gained from the experience of the previous Government reveals that the use of tax incentives has helped to develop fuel efficiency and reduce pollution. They will also help this Government to achieve their target.
I shall now respond to what the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) said about the impact of the measure on rural motorists. The requirement for the total cost of motoring to be borne by the motorist will apply in urban and rural areas, but he specifically identified the problems that people living in rural areas have with increased costs—in particular, the price of petrol is higher.
The Government are very sensitive to the needs of the rural areas and we are aware of car dependency, but it is not the place of the duty system necessarily to take that into account. The hon. Member for North Tayside knows that the Government are committed to reducing car dependency and encouraging greater use of public transport, and that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced his intention to publish a White Paper in the spring that will seek to address those problems. The White Paper will pick up on the points that the hon. Member for Cotswold made about seeking new partnerships with local authorities and the development of community transport

schemes. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will be delighted to receive representations from the hon. Member for Cotswold, who made a very positive contribution, supporting the Government's strategy to achieve their environmental objectives.
Amendment No. 33 proposes that a lower duty be levied in rural areas than in urban ones. The hon. Member for North Tayside probably knows that, because of the way in which duty rates are charged on oil producers, such a system would be impossible to administer fairly. Once the fuel had left the oil producer, how would we determine whether it was destined for rural or urban use or whether people who purchased it rurally would use it entirely rurally?
The Office of Fair Trading, responding to the Trade and Industry Select Committee investigation of 1996, has now launched an inquiry into petrol retailing, including the effects of possible predatory pricing. It will also study the impact on rural areas, because if there is a problem there, it will be a much wider problem than the rate of duty. I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will want to follow that investigation very carefully.
I remind the hon. Member for North Tayside that there are many influences on rural businesses other than road fuel duty. The preliminary results of a Scottish Office study suggest that transport costs, in relation to the value of output, are no greater in the highlands than in central Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom. The issue is therefore the pricing of companies in rural, as opposed to urban, areas.
It is important that people seek out more efficient ways of using their car and more fuel-efficient technologies for their cars, but that problem will not be solved overnight. The Government very much have in mind the express desire of the electorate that the Government should take positive steps to protect the environment; in doing so with these duties, there are extra costs to be borne.

Mr. Swinney: I am sure that many people in the rural community that I represent would reiterate that they share the concern that we all feel about the environment, but I believe that rural communities are also waiting for signs that the Government understand that their circumstances are very different from those in urban areas. Some of the—undoubtedly effective—initiatives to improve public transport in other areas are meaningless to communities where buses come once a week.

Dawn Primarolo: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are very concerned about the experience of people living in rural communities, the absence of public transport and the problem of access to shopping. Those are far wider issues and need to be viewed in the round. The Government are committed to doing that in their study on public transport and, for example, in following closely the outcomes of the study being undertaken by the OFT. However, there must be a balance: motorists must bear more of the costs that they create on the environment. The targets for the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and pollutants in the atmosphere are crucial to that.
In amendment No. 26—a rather confused amendment—the Conservatives cannot make up their mind whether they are in favour of measures for the environment. They seem to want to oppose the measure simply because the


Government suggested it. As I said, it reflects the Government's decision to place the environment at the core of our objectives for the taxation system, by discouraging environmental pollution by road users. It will contribute significantly towards the carbon dioxide savings necessary to meet the Government's targets. Those targets will be discussed at Kyoto in December, when the Government are prepared to envisage substantial cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.
The convention for duty increases coming into force has always been 6 pm on the day of the announcement. The aim is to limit the disorder in the marketplace, and traders are used to dealing with it in that way. These proposals balance the Government's need to reach our environmental objectives with the need to create revenue for the Government as part of the balanced approach to the Budget, ensuring that we have a deficit reduction plan—something which Opposition Members sorely neglected to formulate when they had the opportunity to do so. I ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) may reply on new clause 4. However, given that we are also discussing amendment No. 26, which is in my name, I shall respond briefly—although it is difficult to respond to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury because she did not answer any of the points made by Conservative Members. I have seldom heard such an inadequate and evasive response. She read out parts of her brief, all right, but she did not answer the points that we raised in debate.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is highly unfair to criticise my hon. Friend for not replying to some of the points of the debate, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who made some substantial points, did not even stop to listen to the reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: All that the Financial Secretary did in response to the matters that we raised was to say that our amendment was confused. It is not at all confused; it is quite simple.
We are saying that the Chancellor promised an emergency Budget to implement a windfall tax, and we expected precisely that. Instead, he introduced a 100-page Finance Bill, including this huge and unexpected hit for all who transport goods, drive cars or vehicles of any type or use heating oils.
Our message could hardly be clearer. We believe that the date of any increase should be returned to what it was in the original Budget statement in November 1996, which we understood that the Government had taken over. They took over all our expenditure targets. We assumed that, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the Labour manifesto, Labour would take over the projected revenue increases as well, with the single exception of the windfall tax. We were wrong about that and so were the British people.
What the hon. Lady has not dealt with is the fact that this big increase in duty has a large and damaging effect on the individuals whom we represent—we went into that in some

detail—and on industrial costs, with which the House should certainly deal. The Government say that they are interested in competitiveness, but they do nothing about it. It also has a damaging effect on the retail prices index, which has gone up as a direct result and which affects the economy generally, and on public services. The hon. Lady did not even attempt to defend the Government, who have reduced real expenditure on public services by £3 billion this year. That figure comes from independent sources and it is interesting that the hon. Lady did not attempt to contradict it.
We can therefore take it that it is an established fact that public expenditure in real terms will fall by £3 billion in the remainder of the current financial year and by £5.25 billion in the next financial year. I do not want to worry Labour Members. They may not have thought that they had come into the House to increase public expenditure, but I am sure that they did not expect to have to defend a real reduction in public expenditure. That is what we have established, and the Minister is entirely silent on it.
In the light of the wholly inadequate response to the points raised, I signal that we shall press the amendment to a vote when we reach that part of our proceedings.

5 pm

Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister raised two arguments against new clause 4, one of which is certainly inaccurate and the other probably is. First, she argued that the product would be imported. This country has plenty of rapeseed and a large blending industry, so how does she know that the product would have to be imported? It was a strange argument for her to put forward. Secondly, she argued that it was product-specific. The new clause makes it clear that it is impact-specific, not product-specific. It simply asks for exemptions for products whose emissions can cause cancer, so I do not understand why the hon. Lady had to draw on that argument.
The Minister said nothing specific about the review. She talked in general terms about the cross-impact of all forms of emissions and their cost on the environment. As she has now promised the House that there will be a report, will she be more specific about when the report will be issued and what its general scope will be? At least we shall have elicited that from her.
Now that the Bill has raised petrol duties to such an extent, I should have thought that the Financial Secretary could at least hold down to the present level the duties on the products mentioned in the new clause. That would please some Labour Back Benchers because it would have the effect on the environment to which I alluded, and which she accepts, but would also have a desirable effect on the renewable industry, which would have an extra market.
The Government take little notice of what their Back Benchers think. I appreciate that in return they get little response from them. Labour Back Benchers sit mute for most of the time, except when they are making maiden speeches, and they find even that difficult to do. I accept that the Minister can ride roughshod over her Back Benchers, but I should have thought that this measure, at least, would please them.
Given the Minister's view, I will let the Opposition vote down the measure, to show at least that the Government's actions are different from the rhetoric that they espouse outside the House.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 7

RATE OF DUTY ON SPIRITS

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 5, leave out lines 27 to 29.
New Members may not be aware of my long-standing interest in the whisky industry, but I represent the part of the United Kingdom with the largest number of distilleries per square mile. I therefore follow with great interest the significance of any change in taxation and duty as it affects employment in my area. The industry is vital not only in Moray but throughout Scotland and the United Kingdom.
May I insert an element of humour into the debate? On Saturday I visited Dufftown highland games. Dufftown is known as a town founded on seven stills. A story that is reputed to have emerged from the games over the years is that the annual raffle for a gallon of Grant's Scotch whisky became a matter of great concern when the bottle isappeared at one stage and was never recovered. Bodyguards now guard the raffle stall whenever the games are held. I bought a raffle ticket, but so far I do not seem to have been lucky because I have had no information about it.
On a more serious note, we should consider the employment aspects of the industry. Some 71,300 people in the United Kingdom depend on the Scotch whisky industry, according to a prestigious report produced by the Fraser of Allander Institute. That is three times the number of jobs dependent on computer manufacturing and four times the number dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. In Scotland, 14,000 direct Scotch whisky jobs support 47,460 jobs in our nation. Anyone reading those figures will realise that I am discussing a serious aspect of the economy as a whole, and the opportunities for employment that it offers.
The amendment seeks to stop the increase of duty on spirits as from 1 January 1998. During the Budget speech on 2 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
I have … decided to review all alcohol and tobacco duties. While that review is under way, inflation-only rises for alcohol will take effect".—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 311.]
So many reviews are now taking place that we must address the immediate impact of some of the decisions that have been taken. As someone who has lived her life in politics as a democrat, I always welcome reviews, but, as people are saying in Scotland recently, the Government now have more reviews than there usually are at the Edinburgh festival fringe. According to my latest count, there are just short of 40 reviews and no date has been set for their finalisation.
Having raised duty, albeit on an inflation-only basis, the House has not sent a good message to this vital industry. VAT and duty on Scotch whisky amount to two thirds of the retail price of a bottle of Scotch. When taxes rose in 1992 and 1994, the home market and tax revenues fell; when taxes were held steady in 1993, and cut in 1995 and 1996, revenues improved. The Scotch whisky industry does not need such an increase at this time.
I have long argued in the House that there should be a level playing field in terms of taxation on spirits. It is only fair at this stage to mention William McKelvey, convener of the all-party Scotch whisky group, who retired through ill health at the last election. He and I, and various other

hon. Members, regularly met the Paymaster General and others to argue this case strongly. The single European market has done nothing to help the Scotch whisky industry, which is discriminated against in the context of duty on wines and beers, yet the industry earns more than £2.2 billion a year to offset the balance of trade problems faced by successive Governments.
The amendment would send out a clear message to the Scotch whisky industry that the Government have taken on board the importance of the industry. The increase should not be brought in on 1 January 1998, but should be postponed until a review has taken place.
When the Financial Secretary responds to the debate, will she advise me what steps have already been taken to implement the review, and with whom the Government are consulting—whether with the Scotch Whisky Association, the various organisations involved in the whisky industry, or the all-party group, which has been re-established and is one of the most effective groups in the House? Can she give me some details? When will the review be forthcoming? The whisky industry wants to know whether new Labour has a new message for an old and traditional industry.

Mr. Phil Sawford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in the closing stages of this important debate on the Finance Bill. Maiden speeches must come somewhere, and a debate on alcoholic liquor duties seemed as good a place as any.
It is a great privilege for me to be in the House representing the Kettering constituency. I was born in the constituency and have lived there all my life. It is where my home is and where my heart is. It is where I have raised my family and taken an interest in community affairs for the past 20 years. I very much appreciate the support that I have been given by local electors, and I recognise my responsibility to the people of the constituency.
The Kettering constituency covers an area of more than 400 sq miles set in the heart of rural Northamptonshire and includes the whole of the borough of Kettering and a large part of the Daventry district. Kettering is the main urban centre, but the constituency also includes the smaller A6 towns of Rothwell, Burton Latimer and my home town of Desborough, in addition to some 50 villages and hamlets.
The area has excellent road and rail links. The A14 or M1-A1 link road puts Kettering firmly at the crossroads of England. Combined with the midland main line rail service, that provides many benefits and opportunities for commercial expansion.
The constituency has a bustling commercial centre noted for its success and diversity. It also has many historic and picturesque villages which preserve the charm and tranquillity of a traditional rural community. The need to balance new development with conservation has been an important feature of local planning issues for many years.
There are many tourist attractions in the Kettering area—Boughton house, Rockingham castle and Wicksteed park, to name but a few. We also have the Triangular lodge, where it is said that the gunpowder plot was conceived and planned—not everyone from the Kettering area came to the House with honourable intentions.
That cannot be said of my predecessor, Mr. Roger Freeman, who represented the constituency for 14 years. Through that period, he rose to the dizzy height of Cabinet Minister. While my talents and natural abilities have yet to be fully recognised, my immediate goal is to represent the constituency with the dedication and commitment shown by my predecessor.
Roger Freeman was a very hard-working Member of Parliament. In my dealings with Roger over the years, he was always extremely polite, courteous and helpful. Despite our political differences, I found him a good and decent man to work with. I know that some of my hon. Friends have had a little difficulty in paying tribute to their predecessors, but I have no such difficulty with Roger Freeman.
Having given the customary thumb-nail sketch of my constituency and paid tribute to my predecessor, I shall move on to the business in hand and paint a different picture of the concerns and issues in Kettering. Beyond the picture postcards and thatched cottages, there is another picture. In this light, I welcome the Budget proposals.
In my constituency, there is great concern about the future of the national health service. Indeed, only last week it was announced that the area health authority is facing a deficit this year of several millions of pounds. This has serious implications for local services throughout the coming winter and over the coming year.
The local further education college is also running a deficit budget. I have already had meetings with management and staff representatives to discuss their financial difficulties. Redundancies ae being discussed.
5.15 pm
I have visited many local schools and have seen at first hand the appalling state of disrepair caused by the lack of investment in school buildings. That is having a detrimental effect on staff and pupils. In Rothwell, a small town with a population of 7,000, mobile classrooms are a feature of all the schools. It is possible for children in that town to spend their entire school life being taught in what are basically wooden huts.
In some of the central wards of Kettering, youth unemployment is more than 25 per cent. It is perhaps no coincidence that those areas also have the highest crime rates, and that the crime rates have doubled over the past few years.
I am proud of the area that I represent and privileged to be a Member of Parliament, but I cannot ignore the problems in the community. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget proposals, which reflect the people's priorities. The additional £1.3 billion for schools' capital spending over the next five years from the windfall tax and the £1 billion for current spending will provide some of the resources that our schools need to raise standards.
The extra £1.2 billion for the NHS will begin to improve patient care and restore public confidence in our health service. I welcome the additional funding for breast cancer announced a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
The welfare-to-work provisions announced in the Budget offer new hope and opportunities for young people, lone parents and the long-term unemployed in my constituency.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's commitment to a fairer tax system, with the reduction of VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., which will benefit more than 17,000 pensioners in the Kettering constituency. The Government must ensure that the resources are available to meet all those needs.
With reference to the amendment, I understand why the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) should table such a proposal, but the amendment offers no suggestion about where the necessary resources might be raised.
Of course the Budget is a tough one. None of us expected to come to the House and make easy decisions. All Budgets must have a tough edge. It could be argued that the Chancellor picked up the poisoned chalice from the previous Government. We need a balanced Budget. The Chancellor will look for extra resources to put into health and education. The amendment would have been improved if it contained suggestions about how any shortfall could be made up if it were accepted.
In the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out a clear statement on economic stability. For the first time in 18 years, we have a Budget for all the people. It honours our pledges and reflects the desire for change that was so clearly demonstrated by the people of Britain on 1 May. I welcome this opportunity in my maiden speech to congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Front-Bench Treasury team on the Budget, and I look forward to the days when I do not have to visit crumbling schools, when the people whom I represent have their faith in the NHS restored, and when we can get to grips with youth unemployment and crime in our communities, and make Britain a better place.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is my pleasure, in following the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), to congratulate him on his maiden speech and to wish him well in his career in the House. The House will have noted the generous spirit in which he paid tribute to his predecessor. I know his constituency reasonably well, having made one or two campaign forays there, but I can reassure him that I do not expect to make any more in the immediate future.
Speaking as a Scot, the only thing that disappointed me, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, about his speech was his unwillingness to support the admirable amendment moved by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). In the spirit of Scottish politics at the moment, I am happy to say yes, yes to her amendment. In wishing the hon. Member for Kettering well, I assume that, with his maiden speech now on the parliamentary record, he is not proposing to have a career in the Scottish Parliament, as and when it comes about. He may find that the voters there are less generous in their response to his comments than I am.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I am happy to give our support to the amendment. The points made by the hon. Member for Moray about the importance of the whisky industry at local and especially rural level, as well as about the huge contribution it makes to the national Exchequer were telling. For many years, all of us involved in the all-party group have made those points in discussions with successive Treasury Ministers.
Over recent years, we have been encouraged to find some resonance from the Treasury in terms of recognising, as the hon. Member for Moray pointed out, not only the local importance of the industry in areas such as ours, but the massive contribution it makes to the public purse for the United Kingdom as a whole. It has been encouraging to see that point being taken on board which is why it was dispiriting, if I can use that term, that an uprating was announced in the Budget. We feel that it is out of kilter at this stage.
First, the local importance of the industry is well understood throughout Scotland. Secondly, we had been making progress on the duty on whisky and the change is a setback. The change is all the more ironic because the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a Scot who represents a Scottish constituency. Thirdly, the change will bring us back to the problem that has bedevilled the whisky industry for too many years. There has been an unfair playing field in terms of the difference in the tax take from whisky and from other alcoholic drinks. We have been trying to make progress in the direction of fairness, but the changes takes us some way back from that.
In due course, we shall see whether the argument about the elasticity of demand holds sway. It may be that, some way down the track, the ultimate tax take will decrease as a result of the increase in duty because consumer habits will be moved in other directions. The Chancellor may find that the increase proves to be counter-productive because it does not result in the income that he anticipates and because it is a further disincentive for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry as a whole.
I am happy to support the amendment, which will find a warm and wide echo in Scotland. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Dr. Rudi Vis: In making my maiden speech, I am most grateful for the advice that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, gave me earlier today. I represent Finchley and Golders Green. It is a tremendous honour to represent Finchley; I usually wait a little while before saying "Golders Green". That is not quite the way in which I want to put it; I will come to my predecessors in a moment.
I have listened to quite a number of maiden speeches, including the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford). When considering all the good maiden speeches, I tried to make a distinction between those hon. Members who spoke without notes and those who spoke with notes. My view was that if they were of equal value, I would go for those speeches made without notes. I intended to be in the emulation business, but when I considered the matter in the days prior to my speech, I felt that my emulation would compete strongly with my human frailty—in this case, specifically, my forgetfulness. I thought, "Who will win between emulation and frailty?" I wrote my speech, but I have forgotten my glasses so whatever I have written down, I cannot read. I have in front of me a number of sheets covered with very large letters to remind me of some of the highlights. I can tell hon. Members that they have now missed the best speech in the House for a considerable time. They will, unfortunately, now not hear it; they will hear only a short summary. I am very sorry about that.
I have a few comments to make about my predecessors. My constituency is Finchley and Golders Green, and I do not make a joke about Golders Green. Finchley is proud

to have the Hampstead Garden Suburb, Golders Green and Childs Hill wards embroidered on to it. We always had to work hard, especially when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, to come a decent second. The problem with standing in the Prime Minister's constituency is that 10 or 20 other parties also field candidates. As it costs only £500 to stand as a candidate, those parties pay a low price for television coverage. We always worked hard to come a good second to Mrs. Thatcher whom we never thought we could unseat—and so it turned out. Her own party did it for us.
My immediate predecessors were Mr. Hartley Booth, who represented Finchley, and Mr. Marshall, who represented Hendon, South. These two guys fought it out against one another and because one bussed in rather more supporters than the other, it was Mr. Marshall who won the selection. I distinctly remember reading in all the local newspapers that he would be the next Member of Parliament for Finchley and Golders Green. We had a good fight.
Both those gentlemen are honourable gentlemen and I have always been treated extraordinarily nicely by both of them. Mr. Marshall was a hands-on man in many ways; he knew an enormous number of his constituents. I do not think I can equal him in that respect, especially in terms of my Jewish constituents; I honour him for his relationship with the Jewish community. I will do my best to emulate that part of my predecessor although there are other parts of him that I would not wish to emulate.
Mr. Hartley Booth was a slightly different kind of man; he was a grand design man. He did not know all that many of his constituents, but he was a very thoughtful man and I honour him as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering honoured his predecessor. Both are very honourable men, but there is one difference between my two predecessors. They both had considerable outside interests, but they did not entirely overlap.
It is more difficult to refer to Mrs. Thatcher. I have been in local government for many years. Every time Mrs. Thatcher came to the constituency, she would invite me to see her. She was unfailingly charming and could always remember far more than I could remember, even if I had prepared myself. She would always say hello and remember people's names. I have enormous respect for her, but, fortunately for her perhaps, I must say that there my Thatcherism stops. I have never had any desire to emulate any of her policies. I believe that she will go down in history as a remarkable woman, most of her remarkableness being bringing this nation to its knees. I must, however, remember with warmth her invitations to me. There is a difficulty, as I have explained, and I am definitely not a Thatcherite in a political sense.
The House will know that my constituency is in the London borough of Barnet. I shall not say much about its infrastructure because I am not much into that. It is seen as a wealthy borough, and as a result we have never had the benefit of an SRB—a single regeneration budget grant. Yet Barnet is among the 10 poorest boroughs in dealing with housing the homeless. In future, we may get an SRB.
The difficulty for an area such as Barnet and for the constituency that I represent is that there is enormous wealth enjoyed by those living only a few hundreds yards away from grave poverty in tower blocks.
5.30 pm
During the middle 1980s, I was a member of the local planning committee. The committee was engaged in considering planning permission for a home in the Bishop's avenue, and the price of the property became £12 million. It was not more than 300 or 400 yd away from tower blocks where 60 per cent. of the residents were unemployed and living in considerable poverty. That is an example of the difficulty that we face in Barnet.
Overall average incomes in Barnet are quite good—they are above average, in fact—but poverty is high. It is appalling in some instances, as it is in many other areas of the country.
The remarkable feature of my constituency is not its infrastructure but the wealth of the people. The most beneficial feature of representing a constituency such as Finchley and Golders Green is its demanding nature. There are important one-issue groups. There are so many people in my constituency and in others, both black and white, who make their areas rich by their individual contributions, and I hope to represent my constituents as best I can.
There are identifiable groups, sometimes with one issue, to which I am especially warmly disposed, including those in my constituency who come from Cyprus, both from the Greek sector and the Turkish. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be pressing forward with a resolution of the Cyprus problem so that Cyprus might become one of the friendly nations in the European Union while at the same time impressing Turkey to stand off and to give Cyprus a fair chance as an independent nation.
I am impressed by the briefings that I have had from several colleagues. I thank especially my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has been helpful to me in further explaining the case for Cyprus.
There are many people of the Jewish faith in my constituency. Indeed, there is a Jewish community, and I have been interested in it for many years. I know how dangerous it would be on some occasions to say anything more about what is not necessarily a homogeneous community. That being so, one must be extremely careful in making any statements about it. Many members of the community, however, are worried about the middle east. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will try to make Europe more interested in attempting to establish peace in the middle east, and that is only to be welcomed.
In the western part of my constituency, Cricklewood, there are many people from Ireland, especially Northern Ireland. I am aware of their thoughts and concerns. I am in awe of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland because of the work that she is doing to obtain peace.
Also in my constituency are many people who come from the Indian sub-continent, and we are pleased that they are with us.
I have read the amendments carefully, and some of them, including the one that is before us, are of merit. I have no doubt that they will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury team. The House often considers amendments that relate to only a few people and deal with causes that the Chancellor of the day has not addressed. Most of the

amendments that are before us today congratulate in their own way the Finance Bill as a whole. On that basis, I offer my warm congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is my pleasure to congratulate both hon. Members who made their maiden speeches in the debate. We were initially slightly puzzled as to why they chose to break their silence in a debate on spirits, but any misgivings were soon put to rest by the quality and sobriety of their speeches.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) spoke with great feeling about his constituency. He is right to observe that, despite the prosperity and peace of our constituencies, there are pockets of deprivation. The hon. Gentleman is evidently determined to use his first few years at least to tackle that. We wish him well in that endeavour. We appreciated his genuine and sincere tribute to Roger Freeman, whom we on the Opposition Benches greatly miss.
We were delighted, too, by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis). I suggest that he continues to mislay his glasses when he speaks. His contribution contained a nice balance between substance and spontaneity. We hope to hear a great deal more from both hon. Members during finance debates as well as others.
Conservative Members will be supporting the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in the sense that we argued vigorously in Committee for a reduction in the duty on spirits. To that extent, it may be that the hon. Lady's amendment lacks ambition. I believe that she wishes only to remove the increase in duty from 1 January 1998 while we argued strongly for an overall reduction. It was one of the few issues that were given a full hearing in Committee, unhampered by the timetable motion.
We were prevented by the Chairman, however—I believe that it was Mr. McWilliam at the time—from sampling the product. He issued a stern injunction that only water or medicines could be consumed during Committee sittings. Even our attempt to have whisky classified for medicinal use was ruled out of order. Our appetite for the drink was partly removed, however, by the information that we received from the Economic Secretary, who told us that north of the border whisky is frequently mixed with Irn Bru—a terrible punishment for whisky, as Irn Bru is nasty enough even on its own.
We had time to examine the issue in the round. We asked—this echoes the hon. Member for Moray—that if we are to have a review of spirit duties, including their effect on consumption and shopping patterns, why announce now that there will be an increase in duty taking effect form the start of next year? The proposal surely pre-empts or prejudges the outcome of the review. Just as the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" called for the verdict first and then the evidence, the Government are apparently announcing what is to happen and then consulting about what ought to happen.
We agree that there are serious issues to do with cross-border shopping and the smuggling of alcoholic drinks—the Conservative Government grappled with those issues when in office—so perhaps it would be wise to look into the problem again. However, it is unwise to signal in advance that rates of duty are to rise. With a strong pound, the temptation to smuggle alcoholic drinks


in from the continent is already increasing. Indeed, that constitutes another case for continuing our reductions in duties on spirits—to counter the threat of illegal smuggling, not to mention the legitimate cross-border shopping that goes on. The latter may not always matter to spirits manufacturers, as it is the same whisky which tends to be brought back from Calais, but legitimate shopping abroad damages our off-licence trade and other drinks retailers.
We wanted the Government to continue the trend begun by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who in the previous two Budgets reduced spirits duties by 4 per cent.—adding up, over two years, to a 13 per cent. real cut in spirits duties. Among all spirits, of course, whisky is the most prominent one to be manufactured and sold here.
What is more, we wanted to help the industry. I believe that I heard the hon. Member for Moray say that the export industry is worth £2.2 billion per year—a large sum, and a great tribute to the Scottish companies concerned as we know that they meet discrimination in many overseas markets, where the duty on home-produced spirits is way below that on imported whiskies. When the British Government take that point up with the Governments concerned, they are often told that it is true, but that the United Kingdom itself imposes much higher duty on alcohol in the form of spirits than on other forms of alcohol.It therefore behoves us to move slowly towards putting our own house in order. That, in turn, reinforces the case for a slow, but steady reduction in spirit duties combined with a freeze on other alcohol duties.
We have urged the Government to continue the trend that the Conservative Government began. For the reasons that I have outlined, we have a lot of sympathy with the amendment and we believe that so far the Government have not explained their position.

Dawn Primarolo: I welcome the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford), and his kind words for his predecessors. He graphically described the Labour Government's inheritance from the Conservatives: youth unemployment, underinvestment in the national health service and in education, and the growing problems of crime. He addressed the House with confidence and we look forward to hearing him speak again—with or without glasses, if indeed he wears them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made an amusing speech in which he, too, mentioned his predecessors. If he is capable of that good a speech without his glasses, we look forward to hearing one from him when he has them on.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked again some of the questions that he asked at length in Committee. It is certainly time we put our own house in order with regard to the problems of smuggling, cross-border shopping, criminal activity and the evasion of excise duties. The reason why we need to grapple with those problems now, of course, is that the Conservatives failed to do so over 18 years: their lectures about the problems facing the alcohol industry therefore sound rather hollow.
5.45 pm
As for the two cuts in spirits duties made by the previous Administration, I remind Conservative Members that when they lost the vote on VAT on fuel while trying to increase it from 8 to 17.5 per cent., they too increased the duty on spirits. By way of justification, they said that that was done to defend revenue: the money had to come from somewhere. Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced an inflation-only rise to protect the revenue.
The hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) asked about the review. The hon. Member for Moray discussed the importance of the scotch whisky industry to Scotland and the whole of the UK, and we agree that the previous Government's two duty cuts were not fully passed on in the prices to consumers, or in clearances of the product. If the industry is truly serious about dealing with the problems that it faces, it can meet the Government more often via the partnership that we are offering with respect to the review of alcohol duties.
The hon. Member for Moray asked when the review would be completed. The press release makes it clear that the date is 31 December 1997. It is hoped that the review will inform future Government decision making. It will cover direct and indirect effects, health, law and order, competition law, commercial fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping. It will also assess the impact of a wide range of factors on those issues, including the single market, pricing structures, tax rates, transport costs, marketing, changing consumer tastes and competition law.
These terms of reference have been sent to the trade associations, including the Scottish Whisky Association and other representative bodies wishing to make representations to the Government. We have invited them to meet us urgently so as to push the review forward as quickly as possible.
The only way to tackle the problems that the hon. Lady described, and to bring about the security that she rightly sought for the Scottish whisky industry, is Government involvement in a partnership from which a balanced strategy emerges. There needs to be a balance between the interests of alcoholic drinks producers and of the Government as the collector of taxes: we need to defend the revenue.
I maintain that an inflation-only increase is reasonable. Now that the industry is being offered the chance to achieve, with the Government, a long-term strategy that deals once and for all with the difficulties that we faced every year under the Conservative Government and which we continue to face. The strategy must balance revenues and duties against the costs of drinks to the consumer; it must also take into account both the protection of jobs and the maintenance of law and order. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the Government have laid out a sensible way forward.

Mrs. Ewing: I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) on their maiden speeches. I am very glad that they chose a debate on such an interesting subject to make their exciting and interesting speeches. Both spoke with great panache and style, and I look forward to hearing


future contributions from them. When the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green said that he had forgotten his glasses, I thought that he might have found the missing gallon bottle of Grant's whisky to which I referred. He was probably looking for another type of glass, but I nevertheless congratulate him.
The hon. Member for Kettering said that every Chancellor had to take tough decisions in a Budget, and that is true, but in this context it is important to remember that increases in duty reduce income to the Treasury. The Scotch Whisky Association said:
Prior to the 1995 tax cuts, spirits sales at home were falling and tax revenues diving—to the tune of a £123 million shortfall. In 1996, following the tax cut, the market revived and stabilised, and home sales began to climb. Even with annual cuts of 4 per cent., it would still take 14 years for the Scotch whisky industry to reach parity with other alcoholic drinks.
What may sound like a plea by the Scotch whisky industry for a reduction in price is in fact an attempt to increase the competitiveness of a very important export which is also a very important home product.
The Scotch whisky industry has 200 export markets, as the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) mentioned, and 140 of those markets exercise tax discrimination against the Scotch whisky industry. If we constantly raise domestic tax and duties on Scotch whisky, what message does it send to the people whom we have been trying for years to persuade to grant us a level playing field?
The Financial Secretary said that the tax hike and the subsequent reduction were due to the defeat of the previous Administration in relation to VAT on fuel. Prior to the then Opposition moving, as they have now in government, to reduce VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent., my party introduced a similar amendment. The hon. Lady said that our amendment was a cynical ploy because its aim could not achieved. It is not very fair to continue with that line of argument since we have a strong record of arguing for a cut in VAT on domestic fuel. We thought that it was petty spitefulness by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), to hike duty on Scotch whisky as a result of our actions.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Lady will remember that the House had just agreed to a reduction in VAT to 8 per cent. Had her party pushed for 5 per cent., we would have lost everything and ended up with 17.5 per cent. across the board. When the then shadow Chief Secretary said that he thought that the hon. Lady's party's amendment was cynical, he was referring to the fact that her party had put at risk the 8 per cent. by its parliamentary posturing.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Lady should think a bit more seriously about parliamentary posturing. We had done our homework—if only her own party and members of the then governing party had taken a different stance, we could still have managed to achieve our aim at that time. It is very sad that such an attitude is always displayed by Front Benchers. I intend to press the amendment to a Division.
If the review to which the Financial Secretary has referred is to be completed by 31 December 1997, why on earth do the Government intend to increase the duty

automatically on 1 January 1998? If it is a genuine review, surely the increase in duty should be postponed and the issue analysed more thoroughly. I do not find the hon. Lady's answers acceptable; nor do I have any indication of the dates of meetings that she mentioned with the Scotch—not Scottish—Whisky Association.
I draw the Financial Secretary's attention to a document which must have been available to her. It is from the Scotch Whisky Association and is called "New Partnership, New Labour, New Opportunity: a Report for the New Government 1997". It concludes by urging the Government
to adopt the strategic objective of equal duty per degree of alcohol content for all alcoholic drinks
and
 to reduce the duty on spirits at the first opportunity.
As the response that we have received does not imply that that will happen, I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 327.

Division No. 67]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Fallon, Michael


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Fearn, Ronnie


Amess, David
Flight, Howard


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baker, Norman
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gray, James


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Greenway, John


Brady, Graham
Grieve, Dominic


Brake, Thomas
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brazier, Julian
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hammond, Philip


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Burns, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Cable, Dr Vincent
Horam, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clappison, James



Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Keetch, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)



Key, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cotter, Brian
Leigh, Edward


Cran, James
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lidington, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
Maclennan, Robert






McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond


Mates, Michael
Syms, Robert


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moore, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, William


Öpik, Lembit
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Paice, James
Tyrie, Andrew


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Prior, David
Wallace, James


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Rendel, David
Wardle, Charles


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Webb, Professor Steve


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Ruffley, David
Whittingdale, John


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


St Aubyn, Nick
Willetts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Sayeed, Jonathan
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Woodward, Shaun


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. John Swinney.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caplin, Ivor


Ashton, Joe
Casale, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Charlotte
Cawsey, lan


Austin, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Banks, Tony
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barnes, Harry
Church, Ms Judith


Barron, Kevin
Clapham, Michael


Battle, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Berry, Roger
Clelland, David


Best, Harold
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)


Blizzard, Bob
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Boateng, Paul
Cooper, Yvette


Borrow, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cousins, Jim


Bradshaw, Ben
Cox, Tom


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cranston, Ross


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cummings, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Butler, Christine
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Byers, Stephen






Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Denham, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Edwards, Huw
Kingham, Mrs Tess


Efford, Clive
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Etherington, Bill
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Lock, David


Gapes, Mike
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAllion, John


Gerrard, Neil
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCabe, Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Graham, Thomas
McDonnell, John


Grant, Bernie
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Gunnell, John
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Healey, John
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hepburn, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heppell, John
Meale, Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hill, Keith
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Milburn, Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Miller, Andrew


Hope, Phil
Mitchell, Austin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hutton, John
Mountford, Kali


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)






Naysmith, Dr Doug
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Hara, Edward
Snape, Peter


Olner, Bill
Soley, Clive


Organ, Mrs Diana
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pearson, Ian
Spellar, John


Pendry, Tom
Squire, Ms Rachel


Perham, Ms Linda
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pope, Greg
Stott, Roger


Pound, Stephen
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Powell, Sir Raymond
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Trickett, Jon


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Truswell, Paul


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rooney, Terry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rowlands, Ted
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wood, Mike


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Singh, Marsha
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and



Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 7, line 28, leave out '2nd July' and insert '25th November'.— [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 335.

Division No. 68]
[6.9 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brady, Graham


Arbuthnot, James
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Body, Sir Richard
Burns, Simon





Cash, William
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clappison, James
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Major, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humfrey



Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Merchant, Piers


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Page, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Duncan, Alan
Prior, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Evans, Nigel
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Faber, David
Ruffley, David


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fallon, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Flight, Howard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fox, Dr Liam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Steen, Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Swinney, John


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Thompson, William


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walter, Robert


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Wells, Bowen


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Willetts, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Woodward, Shaun


Lidington, David
Yeo, Tim


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Luff, Peter
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Malcolm Moss.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bennett, Andrew F


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Atherton, Ms Candy
Berry, Roger


Atkins, Charlotte
Best, Harold


Austin, John
Betts, Clive


Banks, Tony
Blackman, Liz


Barnes, Harry
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barron, Kevin
Blizzard, Bob






Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Efford, Clive


Boateng, Paul
Ennis, Jeff


Borrow, David
Etherington, Bill


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Fearn, Ronnie


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Flint, Caroline


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Buck, Ms Karen
Follett, Barbara


Burden, Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gibson, Dr lan


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Casale, Roger
Godsiff, Roger


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Graham, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie


Church, Ms Judith
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grocott, Bruce



Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cooper, Yvette
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Hinchliffe, David


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jamieson, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Denham, John



Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)





Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quin, Ms Joyce


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)


Kingham, Mrs Tess
Rammell, Bill


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lepper, David
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Levitt, Tom



Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rogers, Allan


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McCabe, Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Salter, Martin


Macdonald, Calum
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonnell, John
Sawford, Phil


McFall, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McIsaac, Shona
Shaw, Jonathan


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNulty, Tony
Short, Rt Hon Clare


MacShane, Denis
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Snape, Peter


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morley, Elliot
Stott, Roger


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mountford, Kali
Stringer, Graham


Mudie, George
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Naysmith, Dr Doug



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Hara, Edward
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Pearson, Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vis, Dr Rudi






Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Watts, David
Wray, James


White, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wicks, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)




Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Jane Kennedy and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 15

MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 12, leave out '1998–99' and insert '2003–04'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 28, in page 10, line 14, leave out '1998–99' and insert '2003–04'.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The clause will reduce mortgage interest relief from April next year. It is a tax-raising measure. There are other specious excuses attached to it, but, in essence, it is a way of raising another £900 million in the next financial year—1998–99—rising to £950 million in the following year. The 10.7 million people who have borrowed money to buy their homes will be affected directly and adversely.
There was nothing about that in the Labour manifesto. We knew that the Government were bringing forward an emergency Budget to implement the windfall tax, but there was no hint that they would also raise taxes on petrol and diesel, which we have dealt with, on pension funds, which we shall deal with tomorrow, and on home owners and all those with mortgages.
The tax is being imposed at a time of rising interest rates. We have had three interest rate rises since the election. The Chancellor has given away the power to fix interest rates, but the responsibility for monetary policy rests with him. There is speculation that a fourth rise may be imminent. The cost of higher interest rates so far on the average borrower is £20 a month. That will rise once more if the Bank of England raises interest rates again. On top of that additional burden on borrowers caused by interest rate rises, the cut in mortgage interest relief will add nearly a further £10 a month for someone with a loan of £30,000 or more—which is the majority.
One of the spurious reasons brought forward for this tax increase is that it is said to be a way of dampening down a housing boom. It is true that house prices in the south-east are rising strongly, but that supposed boom has not yet reached my constituency or many parts of the north of England. If the economy is in danger of being destabilised by a housing boom, the Chancellor should cut this interest relief immediately. Instead, it is to take effect from 6 April next year. If that is his aim, it is not very clever to have such a long delay between the identification of the supposed need and the implementation of the policy.
The restriction on mortgage interest relief is also probably regressive. It is commonly supposed that any such restriction hits the better-off disproportionately.

That is no longer the case, because the tax rate allowable has already been restricted to 15 per cent. The time is long past when the main benefit was enjoyed by the well-off or those paying higher rates of income tax.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has observed that, proportionately, the bottom 10 per cent. in income are damaged as much as the richest 10 per cent. That adds to the picture that is already building up that the entire Budget is regressive. That has also been observed by the IFS. Taking into account all the tax changes, particularly all the increases in indirect taxation, the poorest 10 per cent. have suffered the most. We hear about the concern of new Labour for the disadvantaged and the least well-off, but that is not carried through in the Budget, which has the reverse effect.
In the opinion of the IFS, the restriction in mortgage interest relief to 10 per cent. will damage the poorest. That is somewhat of a surprise. The IFS says:
Losses at the bottom end of the income distribution are larger than one might first expect, which reflects the low incomes of mortgagers in these poorer groups making their proportionate losses relatively large. These groups are mainly the short-term unemployed, for whom income support does not cover the increase in their mortgage payments. It would be possible to compensate this group by changing the income support rules to cover their mortgage interest payments, as is the case for the longer-term unemployed.
We wait to see whether the Government will act to prevent that regressive effect, by bringing forward changes in the income support rules. If they do not, we can conclude only that they do not mind the regressive nature of the measure or of the Budget as a whole.
We conclude that this measure is a tax-raising measure—no more, no less. It is one of 17 tax increases that we have noted in the Budget. Our amendments push the relief restriction to beyond the next general election, so that, if the Labour party were to choose next time to fight on a platform of that further restriction, the electorate would have a chance to vote against it accordingly.

Liz Blackman: On the heralding of the measure in our manifesto, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the previous Government heralded in their 1992 manifesto the subsequent reduction in MIRAS?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The point that I was making, which I notice the hon. Lady did not dispute, was that if the measure has a macro-economic rationale, it is undermined by the fact that the suppression of the alleged housing boom will not take place until the boom is all over. Therefore, by implication, she agrees with me about that.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady attended our earlier debates, but we had some predictably barren exchanges about various tax increases in various Parliaments, during which it was established beyond doubt that, even if one accepted that we put through 22 tax increases—which we dispute—it compares with 17 that her Government have already brought forward in their first few months of office. We noted that if the Government continue at their present rate, there will be well over 100 increases before they face the electorate again. She would therefore be most unwise to get into any competition about who has put through the most tax increases.
The Opposition believe that the measure is unnecessary and does not have a macro-economic justification, and that its effect will be surprisingly regressive. For those


reasons and because we do not believe that an extra £1 billion raid on home owners is justified, we shall—I hope—be pressing the amendment to a Division.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I have always tried to avoid making political points, particularly about Budgets, because I appreciate that Governments have a difficult job in trying to balance the books. Although I am sure that the Labour party and its members have the best of intentions, I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that their policies—sadly, probably because of one of those strange coincidences—often seem to hit the poorest hardest of all.
In Southend-on-Sea, where I live, house prices have risen for what we could call the up-market houses in the small number of up-market areas. On the other hand, there has hardly been any price increase at all for houses of £50,000 and less—and there are many of them. In some areas, there has actually been a fall in house prices.
The sad fact is that the Government's proposal will have the same impact on a house owner, regardless of whether the house is worth £200,000, £300,000 or only £40,000. It will therefore make no difference to someone who is on a high salary or has lots of money, but have a rather devastating effect on those on low incomes who have a low-priced house.
The second worry is that the measure comes after several increases in interest rates. It worries me hugely that, because of the collapse of confidence in currencies in other EC countries, it seems that the Governor of the Bank of England will be constantly putting up interest rates, causing more difficulty and problems for those on low incomes.
With successive rises in interest rates and the mortgage interest relief proposal, there is a real danger that, once again—I believe in 1998 or 1999—there will be a serious problem of falling house prices and rising unemployment. I hope that the Government will be reminded that that is a real problem. It is not a conspiracy of the Labour party; it has been forced on us—sadly—because of circumstances outwith our control.
I have seen horrific examples of misery among people in my constituency who are dealing with negative equity. If we create negative equity once again, which we shall if we continue to pile burdens on home owners, we shall be making a grave mistake. I hope that the Government will think carefully about whether reducing MIRAS to 10 per cent. is a mistake, especially bearing in mind the interest rate increases, which will continue.
In general, I feel rather depressed about the economic situation. When the previous Government were in office, everyone made the great mistake of being too optimistic and of feeling that, somehow, everything was going okay. There is a real danger concerning the value of the pound, which seems likely to rise further simply because, as the Governor of the Bank of England told the Treasury Committee, there is a lack of confidence in the currencies of countries preparing to join the euro. In addition, although we might find that unemployment figures look better because of the special work force scheme that is being introduced, unemployment could rise again.
If we have such a problem with unemployment at the same time as several rises in interest rates and a hole in the tax arrangements, we could be in danger of making

a bad problem worse. That is why the amendments tabled by the official Opposition to delay the reduction are wise and prudent.
I appreciate that there is no great point of principle to advance, as what the Government are proposing is exactly what the previous Government did, but on different figures. There is only an issue of tactics and what is right for people who are finding life very hard.
I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that, because the House of Commons is located in London, there is always a temptation to think of housing in relation to London and parts of the south-east generally. There is no doubt that, in London, there have been huge rises in house prices and things are going well, but, sadly, 30 miles away from London, it is remarkably different. I hope that the Government are preparing for a fall in house prices, when a great deal of unnecessary misery will be created.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Clause 15 raises two issues which, as we go through the Bill, seem to be its hallmarks. The first is coherence and competence and the second is honesty or straightforwardness with the electorate.
One can make an extremely respectable economic argument for abolishing MIRAS altogether. It is a distortion of the market. The tax benefits have applied to loans taken out for one specific purpose only. That is not, however, the argument that the Government are making.
One could make an argument for taking the opportunity of this Budget to reduce the value to the borrower of mortgage interest tax relief, on the grounds that the economy is overheating and that consumption is expanding at an unsustainable rate, which is clearly what the Government believe, judging from their analysis of the economy in the Red Book. The Government would be in some difficulty over advancing such an argument because, if they were to do so, it would be logical for the general burden of the Budget to have a negative impact on consumption spending—whereas, in fact, the Budget is pretty neutral about consumption spending.
The reductions in consumer disposable income that will be caused by the reduction in MIRAS and the increase in certain excise duties will effectively be counterbalanced by the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel and additional welfare spending. The Chancellor himself, when I put the question to him in the Treasury Committee—I had to put it to him half a dozen times to get a straight answer—conceded that the Budget is virtually neutral in its effect on consumption. Some £1 billion net will be taken out of consumption which, as I pointed out to him, is only 0.15 per cent. of gross domestic product and will not have an economically significant impact.
The Budget will, however, have an economically significant effect on savings. When the economy is overheating, a sensible Budget stance would be to favour savings or to bear down on consumption, or a mixture of both. Both those directions would get the economy to the same destination. Instead, the Government have imposed an unprecedented levy on savings, by removing dividend tax credits. Therefore, the Government cannot justify the reduction in MIRAS by either of the two arguments that would give it some degree of intellectual respectability. The Government, once again, have made a proposal without a sound and convincing rationale. In short, the measure looks hasty, ill thought through and inconsistent with the rest of


the Budget. It is also inconsistent with the Government's analysis of the state of the economy, and it is incompetent. What else is a Budget with all those characteristics?
The second issue that the measure raises is that of honesty and straightforwardness with the public. The Government have given us a lot of rhetoric about being straight and honest. That sounds appealing and attractive and I applaud them for it, but in practice they fought the election criticising the Conservative Administration for introducing taxes in contradiction of their electoral pledges. However, I do not want to go back over that ground, which has been well trodden in previous debates on tax policy, because I would be out of order.
The Labour party said that it would set new standards of straightforwardness with the electorate, but the opposite is the case. It fought the election without mentioning that it intended to reduce the value of MIRAS, which was highly relevant to everybody with a mortgage. As we know, this country has a high rate of owner-occupation, largely as a result of Conservative Governments since the war and, especially, in the past 18 years. We now have more than two thirds—some 70 per cent.—of the population living in owner-occupied accommodation.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Quentin Davies: I would be disappointed if the hon. Gentleman did not want to intervene in my speech. I would think that I was doing something uncharacteristically wrong. I am delighted that the tradition we have established is being observed, and I give way with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Did the Conservative party announce in its election pledges the two cuts in MIRAS that it introduced? If it did not—and I can advise him that it did not—is it not sheer hypocrisy that the hon. Gentleman is spouting?

Mr. Quentin Davies: I am always flattered to be treated in these debates as if I were sitting on the Front Bench. It is a privilege to defend the record of the previous Government, whom I greatly supported in almost everything they did. The cuts to which the hon. Gentleman referred were made some years after the general election. It is one thing, when economic circumstances change considerably—as they did during the previous Parliament—to decide to make a sensible move that is explained at the time, and another to introduce measures within weeks of an election. Indeed, the Labour Government originally intended to have a Budget in the first 10 days of June, so they must have known in May what they proposed to do. They knew perfectly well that they intended to reduce the value of MIRAS, but they withheld that material fact from the electorate during the campaign.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has accused my hon. Friend of hypocrisy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman did not accuse another hon. Member of hypocrisy, because I would have stopped him if he had. He accused a political party of hypocrisy, and that is different.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for the correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he mentioned the blows dealt to home owners by cuts to MIRAS in a speech to the Labour housing conference on 5 March 1996. He said:
the effect … was to add to insecurity, to destroy confidence in the housing market and to make people much more wary of buying and selling homes.
Does my hon. Friend have a view on hypocrisy in the light of that comment, which was made only a year ago?

Mr. Davies: It is disturbing that the Prime Minister could have forgotten about such a speech a few months later when he was framing the Budget. I shall not use the word hypocrisy because I would be ruled out of order, but such behaviour has a sad tendency to undermine the public's confidence in the integrity of the political process. We owe it to ourselves, our constituents and this place to try to make our actions consistent with our announced precepts.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Prime Minister made those remarks in the context of the highest levels of negative equity that we have seen and of more repossessions than the highland clearances? It would have been silly to cut MIRAS then, but we are now in a different situation, with the economy overheating and the housing market fast recovering. Therefore, a marginal touch on the brake is sensible and consistent with that contextual change, and the intervention by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) was wrong.

Mr. Quentin Davies: There are two answers to that. The first is that the Prime Minister made the remarks to which my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has rightly drawn the House's attention within a year of the election. It is not plausible to suggest that the context is now so different, unless the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) wants to argue that the mere fact that Labour has come to power, and the consequent prospect of irresponsible management, have undermined confidence in the financial markets, so interest rates have to go up. The second point is that it is not open to the hon. Gentleman to argue for the cut on general principles. If it is a general principle to avoid distortions in the economy, that would be true this year, last year, 10 years ago and in 20 years' time. Therefore, by definition, the Prime Minister should have made that point clear when he was Leader of the Opposition. It is in the nature of principles that they are constant, so that point could have been no less a principle in 1996 than it is now.
The public will not be fooled. They will remember all Labour's rhetoric when it said, "The Tories put up taxes, but we will not." The public will know that that was fundamentally false. They will remember all the rhetoric from the Labour party about honesty in public life and they will see the shabby contrast between that rhetoric and the reality. They will not forgive the Labour party, and nor should it be forgiven.

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Member for Croydon, Central is clearly not acquainted with the facts. By 1996, negative equity had changed significantly. Is he aware of the remarks made in 1995 by the then shadow Chief


Secretary to the Treasury? He described the Conservative party's changes to MIRAS as
two Tory tax increases … These latest tax hikes hit as the Tories continue to argue".
I find it odd that the Labour party could describe such measures as tax increases in 1995, but does not acknowledge that the measure that it is now introducing is undoubtedly a tax increase. Moreover, I do not think that it was in the manifesto.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is remarkably well informed about the Labour party's unattractive record on the whole matter. I was about to say "dishonourable", Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you would have ruled me out of order. It is indeed unacceptable to use one form of language to describe a measure introduced by a Conservative Administration, and to use a completely different form of language to describe exactly the same phenomenon when it appears under a Labour Government. The reduction in MIRAS either is or is not an increase in taxation. It is certainly a reduction in the disposable income of mortgage borrowers—there can be no conceivable doubt about that—but, while we understand the use of the phrase "an increase in taxation", those who use it must be consistent, and continue to refer to an increase in taxation when they themselves take such action. I do not think that anyone can quarrel with such logic, and it is sad that the Labour Government are not willing to follow it through.
In other circumstances, the measure could have been defended reasonably and, I think, convincingly. The way in which the Labour Government have introduced it, however, raises serious questions about their competence, about the consistency of their Budget measures and about the appropriateness of the aggregate effect of the Budget—that is, the Budget stance as a whole as it affects the present state of the economy. There is a clear contradiction—to which I have drawn attention in debates on other clauses—between the diagnosis and the proposed prescription.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in 1995, the then Government cut MIRAS twice, during a period in which interest rates were going up and there was a good deal of negative equity, along with a good many repossessions? That continued, albeit to a lesser extent, into 1996, when the present Prime Minister made his comments. In that context, the decision was wrong; but, at a time when the economy is overheating, and when greater consumer buoyancy and confidence are reflected in the markets, is not the change in MIRAS right and consistent?

Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, who knows a good deal about the subject. He has pointed out that at the relevant time, in 1995—and the same has been the case for some years—negative equity was falling. It has fallen to a remarkable extent, year on year. The hon. Gentleman's argument collapses when confronted with reality, as so many Labour arguments have appeared to do during today's debate.
Let me return to the central principles that underlie so much of this ill-thought-through Budget. As I have said, this issue raises major questions about the Government's

competence and the appropriateness of the Budget as a whole. It also poses an enormous question mark—one which should greatly embarrass the Government—over their straightforwardness with the electorate. Is it possible to listen to Labour Ministers' public statements, to take them seriously and to think that they will be reflected in the Labour Government's actions in a few months or, indeed, a few weeks?
The answer, clearly—and sadly for the reputation for integrity of politics in this country—is no. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney has a whole list of quotations from the last few months, which make it plain that the electorate were misled by the Labour party, when it was in opposition, about what the party proposed to do in a number of respects, but specifically about MIRAS. We must all feel sad about that. I hope that members of the Labour party, and specifically its representatives in the House—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—feel a degree of embarrassment and sadness, because that is the appropriate response to a measure of this kind.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I used to earn my living in the City. Serious penalties were imposed on anyone who, for example, engaged in a capital-raising exercise—floating a company, or raising a rights or debt issue—and made misleading statements about his or her long-term intentions with regard to the management of the business, the use of the money to be raised or the factors that were likely to have an impact on the company's profitability or its ability to service the loan. Those were serious matters. Had any statements been made in previous months or years that needed to be corrected, they would have had to be corrected explicitly in the prospectus, so that potential investors reading it were not deceived about the true intentions or views of those who were asking for their money. That principle is taken very seriously in the financial markets, and thank goodness it is.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I want to end my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although the Labour Government have unfortunately left us with far too little time to consider clause 15 or any other clause. I do not think that I can be blamed for that, however much else I may be blamed for.
The discipline to which I have referred—ensuring that responsible people do not deceive those whom they ask for support—does not seem to be observed in the Labour party. The Labour party came to the electorate during the campaign, made a good many criticisms of the Conservative Government—from which certain Labour policy priorities could be inferred—and made a number of commitments. It is clear that its commitments not to raise taxes were not observed, and that the inferences that might reasonably be drawn from its criticisms of the Conservative Government were wrongly drawn by the electorate. All the speeches and comments quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, which imply that Labour was opposed to Conservative progressive reductions in MIRAS, were fundamentally deceptive. Labour was not opposed to those reductions at all; indeed, it clearly intended to reduce MIRAS as soon as it came to power.
I leave the final question to the Financial Secretary, who I assume will sum up the debate shortly. Do the Labour Government intend to abolish MIRAS altogether? There may be sound reasons for doing so, as long as such action is based on clear principles. If the Financial Secretary has that intention, will she now—belatedly, perhaps—be straightforward enough to tell the House and the country so? Will she say whether this is just the first tranche, and whether the intention is to get rid of MIRAS altogether in a year or two? Then we shall all know where we are, and it will be not only a victory for honesty in the Government but a great advantage for householders. Those who borrow by means of a mortgage, or intend to do so, will know where they stand. They will be able to make their family commitments without the fear that their assumptions will be undercut by yet another unannounced and unexplained U-turn by the Labour Government.
If the Financial Secretary does not make it clear in this debate where she stands on that matter, but, in a year or so, defends the final removal of MIRAS to the House, she will not be able to get away with saying that it can be argued for on the basis of general principles. We shall say that it was disingenuous of her to argue one or two years before for simply a cut to 10 per cent. and not tell us that it was part of her long-term strategy to abolish MIRAS altogether. At least in this debate, may we have a greater measure of frankness than we have had from the Government so far on the issue?

7 pm

Dr. Vincent Cable: The Liberal Democrats have supported Conservative amendments to Finance Bills on their technical merits on a good many occasions. There have been many such amendments, but this is not one.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) who, in his introductory remarks and his conclusion, made a cogent case for the phasing out of mortgage interest tax relief. There has been a broad consensus across all the parties that that should be done on its economic merits. The previous Government introduced the gradual erosion of the benefits of that tax relief, partly by cutting the rate from 25 to 15 per cent. and, more gradually, but equally effectively, by freezing the nominal rate at which interest was allowable. In real terms, with inflation, the benefits were gradually reduced. There were good reasons why that should have happened and why there should have been a consensus in the House that the phasing-out process should continue. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford made those points.
MIRAS is a distortion in the market in favour of purchase and against both private and social renting. Moreover, it encourages house purchasers to treat their homes not simply as homes but as speculative assets. We recognise the political difficulties of dealing with the problem suddenly, dramatically and painfully, which is why we have all accepted a gradual phase-out. The Government are continuing that process and they should be encouraged to do so.
The only contrary argument that could hold water is that this is a particularly bad time to phase out the relief. Actually, it is a good time because although interest rates

are rising, they are relatively low, certainly in terms of what they were at the peak of the cycle. If there is a good time to do it, this is it.
Moreover, as has been argued, the housing market is becoming overheated. As several hon. Members have said, that is an uneven process. The market is not a general, undifferentiated whole—bits of it are still depressed. As a general trend, however, that has to be dealt with and it is appropriate that it should be dealt with by, for example, the stamp duty measure.
In addition, we are dealing with a broader economic context in that, as we have urged Labour Members to accept, there is a general overheating of the economy. The measure will take some consumer spending out of the economy. In our view, it will not be enough, which is why crucial public services are having to bear so much of the burden. If the measure were not enacted and consumer spending were not reduced in this way, the Bank of England committee that now looks at monetary policy would be forced to raise interest rates by even more than it will probably raise them within the next month or so, inflicting even greater hardship on manufacturing industry. We believe that that should be accommodated within the household sector, not by industry.
The Government are right to do this—they have probably not done anything right enough in that respect. My only caveat is to reflect the spirit of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). As we all know, there is hardship in the housing market, which is why the Government should say how they propose to deal with that hardship—with low-income groups and people who still face repossession—when dealing with the amendment.
We are well aware that the Government inherited a set of retrograde housing benefit regulations. The changes two years ago made it much more difficult for people with mortgages who were faced with redundancy to cope with the crisis. We hope that mortgage benefit will be dealt with much more progressively. That, coupled with a continuing phase-out of MIRAS relief, would be an appropriate and timely combination of policies.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: This MIRAS—this market-distorting tax relief—was designed precisely to encourage greater home ownership because of the socially responsible attitudes that went with that. In that respect, MIRAS has been remarkably successful. Throughout the period in which the subsidy has been available, home ownership has grown remarkably. So what has changed? Are we no longer willing to support that subsidy? Do we no longer want to encourage people to own their homes?
In Committee, I found it extraordinary that Labour Members suddenly began to announce that they had always favoured the abolition of the relief in its entirety. When they were challenged on whether they had shared their enthusiasm with their electorate in their election addresses, the retort was that there was simply not enough space available in which to do so.
Moving on to all the talk about the housing market, there is no housing market—there are a number of discrete markets that operate quite differently. As we have heard, there is still a severe problem at the bottom end of the market and these measures will most severely affect those living in that end of the market and trying to sell


their homes or pay their mortgages. The £10 or so a month that it will cost the average mortgage payer is significant for precisely those people who are struggling and have to meet the extra £20 or so consequent on the increases in interest rates that have already taken place. The Prime Minister, as Leader of the Opposition, was reassuring the people who have such difficulties when he said at the back end of last year:
We have no intention of raising taxes at all.
They were reassured and they are the people for whom Labour used to speak. It is precisely those people on whom these measures will have the greatest and most adverse effect.

Mr. Howard Flight: The crucial point is that, just three months ago, the Labour party presented the electorate with the proposal that the ordinary person would not suffer an increase in taxation. This measure is an increase in taxation of £100 a year and it will particularly affect the ordinary young family. It comes at the wrong time. Interest rates may be low in nominal terms, but they are high in real terms and about to go higher. That £100 a year will become £250 with the rise in interest rates.
The most important argument is this: when the previous Conservative Government reduced MIRAS, the reduction was mainly progressive. As tax allowability came down to 20 per cent., only the better off suffered. For people paying a 20 per cent. rate of tax, the reduction was entirely neutral. As has been pointed out, the reduction becomes acutely regressive as one goes below 20 per cent. I would have preferred us not to cut the relief from 20 to 15 per cent. when we were in government.
Now, the boot is being put in on two fronts—higher interest rates and MIRAS—for less well-off, ordinary young families. Many of those are the very people who suffered negative equity. As my hon. Friends have said, frequently it is at the bottom end of the market that house prices have not recovered. There are huge regional differences. We have heard all this talk of housing boom, but, in general, the housing market has not recovered from the crash of the past eight years.
The Labour Government propose to hit many young families because of the illusion that they are part of some economic machine of a housing boom that does not exist for them because they have only just recovered from negative equity.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) asked the equally important question: do we wish to discourage home ownership? Going back the days of more generous interest relief on mortgages, the whole point of doing that was to encourage home ownership and the sense of social responsibility that went with it. What is left of that tax encouragement is pretty small, but it is relevant, not to the better-off, but to the less well-off and their families.
The measure is just a cynical way of raising nearly £1 billion in tax and it comes at the wrong time. To impose it, not two or three years, but only three months, after the Government won an election in which ordinary people were made to believe that their taxes would not go up is wrong. The Labour party will pay at the next election for proceeding with this misguided increase in the taxation of ordinary people.

Mr. Woodward: I find myself at a loss to understand the point of clause 15. I am struck by the inconsistency

in the Government's argument throughout much of the Bill; it is encapsulated in the hypocrisy and lack of consistency in clause 15. I and my constituents in Witney want to ask: why introduce this phasing out now and what its real significance? Is it a way of saying to people that the Government are going to phase out MIRAS altogether? If so, why have the Government not had the courage to say so or even to carry it through now?
I find myself wondering about the rationale behind the reduction and I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary explained that rationale to the House. What is the purpose of taking this action now? Is it part of a phasing out of mortgage interest relief at source for home owners throughout the country?
The onus is on the Government to own up, because the measure was not contained in their manifesto. In the manifesto, we read lots of wonderful glossy promises accompanied by lots of wonderful glossy pictures, but we see little mention of tax increases, yet the reduction in MIRAS is a tax increase. Labour promised to include in its manifesto all its intended tax increases: this measure was not in the manifesto, yet, within two months of Labour coming to power, in it comes. The reduction in MIRAS is a significant tax increase because it will hit something in the order of 10.5 million home owners. It will also hit many of those who are thinking of buying a home for the first time. About 400,000 people bought a home for the first time in 1995–96 and I remember that, when I bought my first home in 1983, MIRAS was a helpful tool for someone like me, who did not have any money or a financial background to rely on. It was a way of helping people like me to buy their own home.
I firmly agree with my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, that MIRAS was introduced to encourage home ownership. We have endured a difficult period of negative equity, although I have to correct the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) by pointing out that the heights of negative equity were reached in 1992–93 and had dramatically changed by 1995–96.

Mr. Derek Twigg: If the hon. Gentleman believes that MIRAS was brought in to encourage home ownership, why did the Conservative Government—his Government—cut it twice?

Mr. Woodward: My point concerns the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the current Government's case. On another occasion, I should be more than happy to explain at length my views on reducing mortgage interest relief at source within a clear policy. I do not understand the Labour Government's rationale and I am seeking an explanation. In case the hon. Gentleman has not realised, he is now in government—he has to provide the answers for the 10.5 million people up and down the United Kingdom who will be affected by the change. It is terribly important that the Government understand that there is a limited period during which they can simply apportion blame to the Conservatives. The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) needs to become accustomed to the idea that Labour Members must now explain why their Government introduce hypocritical measures.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The thrust of my hon. Friend's speech is that the reduction in the rate of MIRAS will


affect those at the bottom end of the housing market, especially first-time buyers. Surely it was right to restrict the relief to basic rate taxpayers, as we did. We took it away from those paying the top rate of tax, but left it for basic rate taxpayers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction of the relief will force younger people to save for a longer period before making their first home purchase?

Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a series of important points and the hon. Member for Halton would do well to pay attention. The Chancellor said that he intended to dampen the housing boom—he was obviously aware of the boom in the south-east. However, I am conscious of the fact that the housing boom and changes in housing policy are occurring all over the United Kingdom and it is my view—I should be interested in hearing whether Treasury Ministers share that view—that we should know exactly what the impact of the reduction in MIRAS will be on people living outside the south-east. What will the impact be on people living in the north of England or in Scotland? What will the impact be on those living in houses at the bottom end of the market—the poorest people to have made the decision, which I firmly support, to buy their own home?
I am at a loss to reconcile the Government's action with the Chancellor's statement that:
I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 313.]
If the recovery is indeed at risk, that is not because of changes in the MIRAS rates, but because of what is happening to the value of the pound. The Chancellor will declare that it is not his decision to raise interest rates, but the House will not forget the day the Chancellor gifted operational control of interest rates to the Bank of England, without even so much as a reference to the House until after doing so.
In future years, it will be all very well for the Chancellor to say, "It was not my fault", but it will be his fault, because it was his decision to give away operational control of interest rates and it is the level of interest rates that hurts home owners. As we are about to witness the fourth rise in interest rates in barely more than eight weeks since the Labour Government came to power, home owners will be hurt twice by the measure before us. For those who live in the north of England, Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the measure is a cruel one, which will greatly damage those who bought their own home.

Mr. Derek Twigg: On the issue of hurting home owners, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the hundreds of thousands of people who suffered negative equity and the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their homes under the previous Government? Whose fault does he think that was?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are starting to stray from the amendment, which is about the MIRAS scheme and not about repossession.

Mr. Woodward: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It is important for members of the Treasury team to sit down and consider whether abrogating responsibility for operational control of interest rates is a good or bad idea at a moment like this. I have already explained the relevance of the clause to the interest rate rises. The truth is that interest rates will continue to rise in the next few months. Of course, this weekend some excellent advice was given by the general secretary of the GMB, whose knowledge of economic practices is exceptional. He advised on GMTV that the pound should be linked to the Italian lira because the markets might then think that the pound is not so strong. That is quite right, but unfortunately it has always been the practice of those on the Conservative Benches to be cautious of taking advice from that gentleman.
The truth is that interest rates are the means by which people in this country can be hurt because, for most, the biggest expenditure of their lives is the purchase of their home. The proposal to cut MIRAS will hurt those people at a time when some are still recovering from a prolonged and difficult recession. The hon. Member for Halton may not have noticed that that recession occurred the world over and hit people in every western economy.

Mr. Derek Twigg: What about black Wednesday?

Mr. Woodward: I will not comment on that, because I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would immediately rule that it was out of order and not relevant to the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that people do not understand the rationale behind the Government's decision. They need an explanation of whether the reduction in MIRAS is part of a policy to axe it. Home owners want the answer to that question.
The Financial Secretary has made much in her speeches about the need for certainty and people's need to be able to plan. If one is making the biggest purchase of one's life, which represents the most important commitment that any family will make, one has a right to plan and a right to certainty. I do not understand whether the proposed reduction is part of a plan to abolish MIRAS. We have been offered no clear rationale for the Government's decision.
Today, it has been said that the Government will look at the business of buying and selling houses. A cross-departmental review of house-selling practices will lead to legislation to regulate what has been described by hon. Members as the buoyant housing market. The Government will compile case studies of individual buyers and sellers. I dare say that the Savorets of Islington will provide a useful case study for the Government to examine. When they finish looking at that case, they will appreciate that those people were lucky enough to benefit from being able to buy a house worth £625,000 in Islington. The blunt truth is that the phased reduction of mortgage interest relief will not greatly affect those who are able to afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a house.
For those trying to buy their first home, costing between £30,000 and £50,000, MIRAS makes the crucial difference—the difference between being able to buy a house or staying in rented accommodation. I am aware that, until quite recently, it was Labour policy to prevent people from buying their own homes.


Apparently, that conviction was easily shed so that the Labour party could get into power. Now we search for the Government's new rationale towards home ownership. Is it something that they will encourage or punish people for?
In the interests of clarity and honesty, I would greatly welcome hearing from the Financial Secretary whether the MIRAS reduction is a one-off or part of a policy to phase it out at source. When can the 10.5 million home owners expect that policy to be effected and completed?

Dawn Primarolo: The Conservative Government cut mortgage interest relief six times—on a number of occasions when interest rates were rising. I do not recall hearing Conservative Members voice their concern for those who then found themselves in negative equity or who lost their homes because of the housing boom. I remind those hon. Members that, even with the recent increases in interest rates and allowing for the reduction in mortgage interest relief, payments on a typical mortgage of £50,000 are still £250 a month less than they were when the Conservative Government presided over the boom and peak in interest rates.
Every hon. Member knows that those who own their own homes, or aspire to do so, are haunted by the prospect of a housing boom and the negative equity and the repossessions that go with that. The Government's measures on mortgage interest relief have been welcomed by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which described the Budget package as prudent, and by the Halifax building society, which said that the measures would allow steady growth in the housing market. The difference is that, according to the Halifax index, house prices in the three months to June were up 2.1 per cent. on the previous three months and up 6.8 per cent. on a year earlier. Most commentators expect that there will be similar rises in the next year. Although those rises will be uneven, they will be spread across all the regions.
The measures proposed by the Government on mortgage interest relief and stamp duty will apply a gentle brake on the housing market. They are also designed to provide it with some stability to avoid the boom over which the Conservative Government presided, with all the misery that went with it.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady says that her Government have the monopoly on the care of those in negative equity. Surely every interest rate rise makes it all the more difficult for those in negative equity to earn their way out of it. The combined effect of the four interest rate rises since the election and the proposed reduction in MIRAS will make it even more difficult for those in negative equity to get out of it.

Dawn Primarolo: I would not suggest for a moment that Labour Members are the only ones with a monopoly on care for those on low incomes. I was pointing out that, in government, Conservative Members were less vocal and their actions did not follow the prescriptions that they are now recommending to the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is necessary to act on the housing market before matters get out of hand instead of waiting until they are completely out of control and then standing by, wringing our hands and saying how sorry we are.
I accept that the impact of the MIRAS reduction will hit low-income families, but their mortgages tend to be low, so the impact will not be as great for them. It is essential for those families to have the security of the knowledge that there will not be a runaway housing market because the Government are taking prudent measures to ensure that that does not happen.

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Lady has yet again made much of security and certainty. Would she care to explain to hon. Members how tax changes, in particular the four increases in interest rates in three months, will add to people's sense of security and certainty?

Dawn Primarolo: The increases in interest rates are a result of the mess that the previous Government left us to clear up. The previous Government did not take the advice that they were given before the general election, so it is necessary to act now. The electorate can rest assured in the knowledge that the Labour Government will take the difficult decisions to ensure economic stability.
Amendment No. 27, which would delay implementation of the MIRAS cut, is ridiculous. As we have said, it is necessary to try to dampen down the housing market to protect those in the market and to ensure that those who aspire to home ownership can do so on terms that they can afford, in the knowledge that the market is slowing down.
7.30 pm
Conservative Members make their proposals from the security of the Opposition Benches, not the reality of dealing with the economic circumstances. The Government will not shrink from taking the difficult decisions to protect stability, especially in housing. I recommend that the House votes against the amendments and supports the Government in their strategy.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: These debates are settling into a familiar pattern: we ask the questions and the Financial Secretary cannot or will not answer them. However, it is not an entirely fruitless exercise because, from her silence and her failure to answer our points, we have established beyond dispute some important facts.
First, clause 15 is a major breach of the tax pledges that Labour made at the time of the general election. Secondly, we have established that the measure is regressive. It hits the poorest 10 per cent. of people in the country more than the richest 10 per cent. Thirdly, the measure fails to deal with the supposed housing boom—if that was the intention—because it does not come into effect until 6 April 1998. Fourthly, it is simply a crude, tax-raising measure. It will net the Treasury nearly £1 billion a year extra and it will do so at a time when interest rates are and will be rising strongly.
So borrowers, all 10 million of them, will be hit twice—by the increase in their mortgage contributions and by the withdrawal of, or further limitation of, tax relief. Above all—

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most significant questions that the Financial Secretary was unable or unwilling to answer


was whether the reduction in MIRAS should be regarded as one tranche in the process of the elimination of MIRAS or as a one-off exercise which would not be repeated?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I remember his specifically asking the Financial Secretary that question and she specifically refused to answer. I agree that her silence and her evasion on that subject are eloquent. We fear the worst. The Labour Government are breaking all their tax promises in their first Budget and are likely to continue to do so. That is the implication of what my hon. Friend asked.
Above all, the measure is yet another imposition—a damaging and continuing one—on the ordinary people of this country, the borrowers, the people who try to think long, who borrowed money to build an asset of their own. They have been clobbered in the first Budget, in defiance of all those promises that were repeated not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Prime Minister, in the weeks before the general election. I shall therefore invite my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 363.

Division No. 69]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Blunt, Crispin
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William


Boswell, Tim
Hammond, Philip


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Heald, Oliver


Brady, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Burns, Simon
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cash, William
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)




Key, Robert


Clappison, James
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Leigh, Edward


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lidington, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Loughton, Tim


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mates, Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Garnier, Edward
May, Mrs Theresa


Gibb, Nick
Merchant, Piers





Moss, Malcolm
Syms, Robert


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Pickles, Eric
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prior, David
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Walter, Robert


Ruffley, David
Wardle, Charles


St Aubyn, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whittingdale, John


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Woodward, Shaun


Spicer, Sir Michael
Yeo, Tim


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Sir David Madel and


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ainger, Nick
Canavan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caplin, Ivor


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Casale, Roger


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cawsey, Ian


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ashton, Joe
Church, Ms Judith


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clapham, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Baker, Norman
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie



Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Beard, Nigel
Coaker, Vernon


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coffey, Ms Ann


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corston, Ms Jean


Benton, Joe
Cotter, Brian


Berry, Roger
Cousins, Jim


Best, Harold
Cox, Tom


Betts, Clive
Cranston, Ross


Blackman, Liz
Crausby, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cummings, John


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Borrow, David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)



Bradshaw, Ben
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Brake, Thomas
Dalyell, Tam


Brand, Dr Peter
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darvill, Keith


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burden, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Dawson, Hilton


Caborn, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Denham, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dobbin, Jim






Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ennis, Jeff
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Etherington, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fearn, Ronnie
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keetch, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Caroline
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Flynn, Paul
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Follett, Barbara
Kingham, Mrs Tess


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fyfe, Maria
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Galbraith, Sam
Laxton, Bob


Gapes, Mike
Lepper, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Leslie, Christopher


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Levitt, Tom


Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Godman, Dr Norman A
Linton, Martin


Godsiff, Roger
Livingstone, Ken


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lock, David


Graham, Thomas
Love, Andrew


Grant, Bernie
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McCabe, Stephen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gunnell, John
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McDonnell, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hanson, David
McIsaac, Shona


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Harris, Dr Evan
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Maclennan, Robert


Healey, John
McNulty, Tony


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heppell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hill, Keith
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoon, Geoffrey
Maxton, John


Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hopkins, Kelvin
Meale, Alan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Alun


Howells, Dr Kim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mitchell, Austin


Hurst, Alan
Moffatt, Laura


Hutton, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moore, Michael


Illsley, Eric
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jamieson, David
Morley, Elliot


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)





Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mountford, Kali



Mudie, George
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Hara, Edward
Spellar, John


Olner, Bill
Squire, Ms Rachel


Öpik, Lembit
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stevenson, George



Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Stoate, Dr Howard


Perham, Ms Linda
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pickthall, Colin
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pike, Peter L
Stringer, Graham


Plaskitt, James
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Pond, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pound, Stephen
Swinney, John


Powell, Sir Raymond
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Todd, Mark


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Touhig, Don


Rendel, David
Trickett, Jon


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rooker, Jeff
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruane, Chris
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Webb, Professor Steve


Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian


Salter, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sanders, Adrian
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Willis, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, James


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Singh, Marsha
Wyatt, Derek


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Mr. John McFall and


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Ms Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 17

WITHDRAWAL OF RELIEF ON MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 29, at end insert 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 10, leave out lines 32 to 36.

No. 5, in page 10, line 41, at end insert 'and'.

No. 3, in page 10, line 43, after 'contract', insert
'and in each case the contract is for a period of not more than 12 months'.

No. 6, in page 10, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 3 on page 11.

No. 4, in page 11, line 4, after 'section', insert—

'(i) where the insurer has agreed to issue a continuous monthly series of contracts in a form previously approved by the Inland Revenue then each in such series of contracts shall be treated as part of one whole contract commencing on the first day of the first contract in the series and ending on the last day of the last contract in the series and each monthly payment thereunder shall be treated as a part of the whole payment under that contract, and
(ii).'.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The amendment raises some technical points but also some issues that are fundamental not only to clause 17 but to the whole way in which the Bill has been framed and forced through the House.
On 16 July, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I discussed a number of important cases of private medical insurance for which the intentions of clause 17 were not adequately clear. We identified three types of medical insurance. The first is verbal contracts entered into before the cut-off date mentioned in the clause—2 July—but where the confirmatory documentation had come after that date. The second is contract renewals, where an insurance company's client had agreed before 2 July the contract renewal of an insurance policy for another year, but where the contract came into effect after 2 July.
The third type of contract, and by far the greatest number—in the case of one insurer, almost half of its business is written in this way—consists of annual contracts written as a series of monthly contracts. This method of writing insurance contracts has been approved by the Inland Revenue because it avoids some of the complications of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is an entirely legitimate and approved way of doing business, yet clause 17 is unclear about how such contracts would be treated. Would the relief end at the end of the next month and at the start of the next monthly contract, or would it carry through to the end of the series of monthly contracts?
Those were the points which we put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. We did not ask for an immediate response. We understand that they are technical points. The hon. Lady was free to go away and think about the matter before clarifying to us what the clause was intended to do. But she wasted no time in putting my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and me firmly in our place. She said that we simply had not read the clause clearly, and that if there were any doubts, the answers would be found in the explanatory notes from the Inland Revenue.
My hon. Friend and I reread the clause and the explanatory notes, but I am sorry to say that we found nothing dealing with verbal contracts, nothing that resolved our concerns about contract renewals and

nothing at all about monthly contracts. We were grievously misled, albeit perhaps unintentionally, by the words of the Financial Secretary.
If one reads Hansard, there is no doubt that we were given assurances that the answers would be found, but they were not to be found. If ambiguous clauses are put together in haste, as part of a Budget put together in haste, it is no use complaining if others do not grasp the intended meaning of the clauses. When others ask for clarification of the meaning, it is not good enough to hide behind official documents and statements that do not answer the specific questions raised.
I raised the matter with the Leader of the House, who told me in the Chamber that the correct forum for discussing it would be at a later stage in the proceedings on the Bill. So we are here tonight, in the correct forum to discuss how those important cases are to be treated.
The assurances that I hope we will get from the Financial Secretary must depend of the credibility of her words. Will she take this opportunity to correct another misstatement that we heard on 16 July? In the process of dismissing our concerns, which still exist, the Financial Secretary said:
There is no indication that those who have private medical insurance and receive relief will change their minds because of our decision."—[Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 417.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry pointed out that there had been a report recently from the Economists Advisory Group which made it clear that the withdrawal of the relief would have an effect on the numbers who take out private medical insurance. We know as the result of a letter from one of the insurance companies that the Financial Secretary had received a copy of that report in mid-May, yet she told us in July that there was "no indication" of the effect of the relief being withdrawn.
Did the Financial Secretary utter those words because she failed to read that important report on the effects of withdrawing relief on medical insurance, or because she failed to remember what she had read in the report, or did she simply fail to tell us, even though she had read the report and she did remember it? Perhaps she will let us know in which sense she misled us on this vital point.
There is an irony about clause 17 coming from a Government who claim to govern for the many, not the few. The irony arises from the clause, coupled with the relief on the rate of VAT on fuel. The combined effect of those two measures is regressive. Although the savings on fuel will benefit most those who spend the most on fuel, the study that I mentioned and others that I have received from insurance companies make it clear that—

Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the definition of regressive taxation is based on the proportion of a person's income that the tax takes, not the absolute amount? Therefore, because VAT takes a larger proportion of the income of those on lower incomes, it is regressive. It is not the absolute amount but the proportion that matters.

Mr. St. Aubyn: If the hon. Lady will wait a moment, she will realise that the combination of measures is indeed regressive. Studies have shown that waiting lists will go up as a result of the measure. Some people will not be able to afford the premiums without the tax relief.


They will go back to depending solely on the national health service, and when they need treatment, they will add to waiting lists.
According to the report that I mentioned, an increase of 30,000 a year on waiting lists will be the first result of the measure, and those numbers will be concentrated. Everyone—not just the few, but the many—will have to wait longer if they want a hip replacement operation, cataract procedures, a coronary bypass or other operations commonly required by elderly people, many of whom never aspired to private medical insurance, but all of whom will be affected as those who had such insurance revert to reliance on the health service and add to the waiting lists.

Liz Blackman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that insurance companies such as the Norwich Union already have advertisements in the newspapers stressing that there will be virtually no impact on their customers? They calculate that the impact will be virtually nil and that they will retain their customers.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that the hon. Lady is old enough to know that one should not believe everything that one reads in an advertisement. However, if one is so under the spell of people who are in love with advertising, such a mistake is understandable.
Many prominent insurance companies have written to me, to my hon. Friends and to others, making it clear that although they will try to mitigate the effect of the change by offering people restricted cover, which they can do on terms that do not substantially increase the premiums, the collective effect of restricting the cover means that certain expensive medical procedures will not be covered, and when those operations are required by some of their clients, they will have to be performed on the NHS. The burden on the NHS will be spread over the entire community, and the waiting lists for the entire community will increase. We should be in no doubt about that.
Who will gain from the withdrawal of the relief and the loss of money for health spending? Those who will gain are those with the largest homes, who have the biggest heating bills. I think of people such as the Paymaster General. He has a very large house in my constituency, which is one of his many houses; I wish him well. It is, however, an irony that he is one of the people who will benefit the most from this combination of measures while other people, who are much poorer than he and who struggle to provide for their health needs through their health insurance policies, will no longer benefit. They regret that they will add to the burden on the national health service and they regret that, having provided for themselves for so many years, when they are most likely to need the help of their insurance policy, they will have to give up paying the premiums. That is a very sorry tale.

8 pm

Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many people who have taken out such insurance will be affected? I have listened to him for 13 minutes now and he has not given us any facts.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that according to the Inland Revenue's own figures—indeed, those who read the explanatory notes will know this—

about 600,000 individuals have policies. According to the industry, typically, the number of people affected by a policy is two so we are talking about upwards of 1 million people who benefit from medical insurance policies. The industry's further estimate is that withdrawing the relief entirely will mean that almost half those individuals will give up the health insurance that they have today. If the figures are even a fraction of that, the savings from abolishing the relief will be wiped out by the increased costs loaded on to the national health service. What makes this measure particularly painful for the health service is that none of the savings will be channelled into the health service. They will be channelled into a reduction of VAT on fuel.
The manner in which the Financial Secretary has dealt with our objections has smacked of pride. The manner in which the clause has been introduced smacks of prejudice. I am afraid that not even Jane Austen could easily write a happy ending to this tale. Let us, however, try.
Despite my criticisms of the Financial Secretary—I know that she is new to her post and I realise that it is difficult to get to grips with such a big job—I am grateful for her letter to me of 25 July. The letter, although it patronises me, is nevertheless helpful in clarifying the situation and I am only sorry that it did not come earlier. I should like to clarify one or two points in the letter and if the understanding I have reached is correct, having heard from her and from others in the debate, I may be prepared not to press some of my amendments.
The first point that the Financial Secretary makes is that the transitional provisions of clause 17, which phase out the relief during the year as annual contracts come to an end,
apply only where there is no contract in place before Budget Day.
That is a very significant statement because the letter goes on to say that
the relief is withdrawn … in respect of all contracts made on or after Budget Day. Contracts made before then are not affected.
If I understand the Financial Secretary correctly, her letter means that the significant date is not the date from which the next contract runs, which might be after 2 July, but the date on which the contract was agreed. That is the type of contract we are talking about when we refer to telephone confirmations of contracts that were made before 2 July, but for which the documentary evidence was not completed until afterwards. The letter would appear to cover that.
The letter also appears to cover the case where a renewal has been put through to a client of an insurance company and the renewal has been confirmed by the client before 2 July. The contract is made, but the start date of the contract may be some weeks after 2 July.
The third and most important group, because it is the largest group of contracts about which we are concerned in our questions to the Financial Secretary, is monthly contracts. In her letter, the Financial Secretary states
There is no suggestion … that monthly contracts are to be treated differently.
The problem we have is that the way in which some monthly contracts are written by some insurers, including Prime Health, an insurer in my constituency and one of the largest, does not marry up with the way in which the clause is written.
Since I and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry raised the matter in the House on 16 July, Prime Health and others, I am delighted to say, have had verbal


assurances from the Inland Revenue that all their monthly contracts, however they are written, will be treated like annual contracts and that the relief will continue until the end of the series of contracts is completed because they have been approved by the Revenue. That is extremely good news.
There is, however, an extremely important principle here. Shall we see the regulation of taxation carried out by regulatory, bureaucratic fiat—by verbal assurances behind closed doors—or shall taxation rules be decided on the Floor of the House in open debate? That is what amendment No. 4 is about. Whether the matter is agreed by the Inland Revenue by verbal assurance or whether it is agreed here affects not only the certainty of the agreement, but the way in which we conduct business.

Mr. Nick Gibb: Another, wider, point is that the verbal assurances were given to only one taxpayer. Those verbal assurances are needed by other taxpayers who face a similar problem. We are discussing a fundamental principle of the rule of law and my hon. Friend was absolutely right to table his amendments.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall listen with great interest to what the Financial Secretary says in due course. I know that she is uncomfortable about the idea, but it may help her to realise that we feel that on two occasions, we were misled by her during the debate on 16 July. Opposition to the amendment would not only be highly misleading in the light of the assurances from officers of the Inland Revenue, but would, more importantly, for the reasons that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) have explained, be an abuse of the process by which we determine statute on financial affairs in this Chamber.
If the Financial Secretary is willing to accept the amendment and to give the assurances that we seek, all will be forgiven, all will be sweetness and light, and the insurance industry will have come to a happy understanding. The ball is firmly in her court.

Mr. Tim Boswell: The whole House owes a debt of gratitude and admiration to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) first, for his pursuit of this matter in such detail, secondly, for his elegance and lucidity in bringing it to the attention of the House tonight and thirdly, for his pointing out the salient issues raised by the amendment.
The purpose of the amendments has already been admirably explained by my hon. Friend. It is, essentially, to elucidate and, if possible, correct aspects of the Government's proposals on the implementation of the withdrawal of private medical insurance relief. Those issues, as well as the general ones, were the subject of exchanges in the House between the Financial Secretary and us on Wednesday 16 July. I shall come back to those points of detail later.
On the wider issues of private medical insurance, suffice it to say, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has spoken most eloquently, that we simply do not believe that the Government have

succeeded in proving their argument that there will be real savings to the Exchequer from these proposals. We believe that savings will be substantially nullified by a significant return of policyholders to the national health service. We believe also that those arguments are well advanced in the economists advisory group report. If there are savings, and even to the extent to which they are borne out in practice as a result of the Government's measures, there will be a loss of revenue to the Exchequer, an increased load on the NHS and ultimately a detriment to those who have to rely on the NHS because they currently hold no private medical insurance.
Be that as it may, and given that the Government are bent on the withdrawal of private medical insurance, it is clearly desirable that the withdrawal of relief should be fair in its implementation and that every effort should be made to get things right. That is surely the right approach.
Our earlier exchanges sadly revealed what is being seen to be the Government's characteristic approach to matters of detail. I do not know whether they adopt such an approach because they are careless of the consequences on individuals. Perhaps, to be less charitable, they are themselves uncertain of detail. If they are, I shall be charitable to them in this instance because I recognise that we are dealing with complicated issues.
I have noticed more than once, however, during the passage of the Bill that we have been told by Ministers that it is all entirely clear—usually in the new clauses because not even a tax expert could possibly say it was perfectly clear from the Bill. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has had some difficulty with certain aspects of the Bill.
Having been told that everything is perfectly clear, we poor souls have to admit that it is not entirely clear to us and that we still do not understand it. That was the way in which the Financial Secretary, for whatever reason, chose to respond to points made with a degree of modesty and diffidence by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and myself in Committee on the Floor of the House. Indeed, that is why we are returning to these matters this evening.
I do not know how the occupants of the Treasury Bench saw their role as the Labour party in opposition. We, the present Opposition, however, are prepared, up to the limits of our ability, to tackle the Bill and to listen to advice and expressions of concern from professional persons, given the impact of the Bill. We shall then seek to query details and offer improvements.
If I have one piece of advice for the Government, it is that they should not raise their hackles and assume on principle and in advance that all Opposition amendments are necessarily wrecking in nature and always wrong. Given the Government's haste in the sorry business of the Bill, we from time to time—I say this assuredly to the Financial Secretary—are trying to help the Government to get their legislation right. To be more accurate, perhaps I should say that we are doing our best to protect our constituents from the collateral damage that the Government's carelessness and haste have inflicted in general.
It is in that context that the three detailed issues brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford should be carefully considered. As my hon. Friend has explained, they relate to three specific categories of private medical insurance. First, there is the category of


policy taken out in sequence as a series of discrete policies over 12 months, but not as one period with monthly payments. I believe that the reason for that approach in some instances may be the operation of consumer credit legislation. For all practical purposes, however, they are annual policies or, if we must so describe them, quasi-annual policies.
The second category features those insurances that are covered by verbal contract without a confirmation in writing at any particular time, and certainly not at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The contract takes effect before it is confirmed in writing.
The third category features those insurances where renewal has been notified by the policyholder in advance of the deadline of 2 July, but the contract did not enter into force until after that date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has explained the details of these implications extremely carefully and I do not need to take up his arguments. I shall make three detailed comments, however, before inviting the Financial Secretary to consider the position with me.
8.15 pm
My first point is that the arrangements that we are considering, which have been carried out over a period of years by Prime Health in Guildford and by other insurers elsewhere, were entirely normal within the conduct of their business. There is no question of avoidance action to frustrate the Revenue.
Secondly, until the Chancellor's announcement on 2 July, there was a legitimate expectation on behalf of policyholders that their arrangements would stand until notified to the contrary. Certain undertakings had been entered into along with courses of action and there was the reasonable expectation that those would continue. As I said in Committee, there could be severe difficulties where contracts have been concluded, perhaps on a verbal basis, and tax relief withdrawn if the insurer were to hold the policyholder to a contract that he could no longer afford to maintain.
Thirdly, despite the helpful efforts of the Financial Secretary to clarify the matter, there is still a degree of ambiguity in her letter. We need to return to it to ensure that the points that it incorporates are thoroughly nailed down. In the hon. Lady's letter of 25 July to all members of the Standing Committee, she writes:
There is no suggestion that the contracts have to be in writing—this is a matter of general, not tax, law".
Yet previously in that same letter she denied any intention of extending transitional relief:
to verbal or monthly contracts or to contracts …commencing
after 2 July.
Against that background, I still do not feel that these matters are as clear as perhaps the House is entitled to wish or as the Financial Secretary will wish to claim. I begin to piece together from an analysis of the Financial Secretary's letter the following scene—I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would harken to it as I think myself through these matters. I ask her to confirm later whether I am right.
First, I am sure that the Financial Secretary is right, although I am not a lawyer, that a contract is a contract is a contract, whether verbal or written. If there were

a contract between an insurer and a policyholder, one taken out before 2 July when the Chancellor made his announcement and subsequently confirmed in writing, if it was not written at the time that it was taken out, that contract would stand and would attract tax relief for the period of the contract.
As I understand the Financial Secretary's letter, the main thrust of the clause is about contracts concluded on or after 2 July and not about contracts taken out before that date. The hon. Lady is claiming, however, that she is giving helpful and additional transitional reliefs. The first would be in the instance of a new contract where the understanding was that the contract would be taken out but it had not been signed up to, for whatever reason. The hon. Lady is saying, possibly with the thought in mind that some such contracts may be real pre-2 July contracts but not nailed down in writing, that providing writing appears by 1 August and premiums are paid by the end of March 1998, they would qualify for tax relief for the current year.
The second category comes within renewal. It takes up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford raised in terms of Prime Health. I am referring to a contract taken out ahead of Budget day but not coming into force until a few days thereafter. That contract would be honoured for tax relief purposes in the current year, as long as it was consecutive on a contract that was already in place.
I apologise for these complications; I am certainly not trying to trip up the Financial Secretary. We are all anxious to get the legislation as right as we can. We are conscious, too, of Pepper v. Hart—hence the need for certainty in the debate.
The third category to which my hon. Friend referred comprised monthly contracts, or as I call them, quasi-annual contracts. Perhaps the Treasury has some sort of administrative concession in mind. I should prefer an administrative concession to nothing at all. There are awkward precedents for extra-statutory concessions—the Revenue allows them from time to time—that are not eventually validated in substantive law later on. Such concessions are an uncomfortable way to relieve a problem: to whom should they be made, will they be extended equally to everyone, and so on? Furthermore, they cannot, by definition, be justiciable. I submit that the last of my hon. Friend's amendments would serve the purpose much better, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will refer to it in due course.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that extra-statutory concession is a far from satisfactory way of dealing with the matter? It would be far fairer to people over 60, many of whom are not especially au fait with complicated tax law, to set down clearly in statute what is involved, thereby allowing their insurance companies to inform them clearly of their position.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend makes the point better than I could. It is, of course, better to be clear in the statute. If the Government are not inclined to do that, some concession is better than none—but I was going on to mention the importance of how the concession is implemented. How will it be notified to policyholders, many of whom are elderly and who may get confused—although many have a pretty good idea of what is going


on? They will need to deal with their insurers, as they already do with the operation of relief at source. But they will need to know how this is to work, the more so if it is delivered by this roundabout route.
The devil is certainly in the detail, and the Government cannot behave as if the detail does not matter. It clearly matters a great deal to policyholders and insurers; and in terms of the smooth operation of revenue law and of fairness as between individuals.
We are still looking for greater clarification. It is the very least the Government can do for people who, even if the transitional arrangements are relaxed or at least clarified, will assuredly suffer in years to come from the principle behind these changes. We continue to oppose it.

Mr. Ross Cranston: I have been provoked to rise by the speech by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who made certain assertions to which I shall return later.
In Committee, certain comments were made about the drafting of the Bill. On other occasions, I have been critical of the style of drafting that we use in this country, but clause 17 could not be a clearer statement of Government policy. As the Financial Secretary said in her letter of 25 July, the Bill's contents, including clause 17, must be interpreted against the background of general law—and the general law is quite clear about when a contract is made. A contract made orally and confirmed later in writing is made at the time of the oral agreement, so this is not a matter of deciding by "regulatory fiat"—the phrase used by the hon. Member for Guildford—nor is the matter very complicated.
I was provoked, as I have said, by some of the extraordinary statements made by the hon. Gentleman. He claimed that 1 million people were involved, but the Conservative spokesman conceded that at most 550,000 people might be affected by the tax relief. On Second Reading, we made the point that that number had hardly increased since the relief was introduced.
The hon. Member for Guildford also made the extraordinary claim that the abolition of this relief, combined with the relief gained from the cut in VAT on domestic fuel from 8 to 5 per cent., was regressive. On Second Reading, I described the extent of fuel poverty in the UK, quoting figures to show that those on lower incomes spend a much higher proportion of those incomes on domestic fuel than do those on higher incomes. So the VAT reduction has had a beneficial, progressive impact.
Help the Aged has commented on the measure, saying that it will affect only 5 per cent. of people over the age of 60:
Help the Aged is more concerned about seeing improvements to the NHS so older people will receive high quality, accessible and free health-care.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Not for the first time, there seems to be some incongruity in the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He is arguing against the amendment, which seeks to protect pensioners with monthly medical health insurance who would otherwise lose the relief immediately. The amendment is designed to allow them a fair phasing out, in line with others who hold annual policies. At the same time, the

hon. Gentleman is taking us down the highways and byways of VAT on fuel. On the other hand, proposals elsewhere in the Bill would delay the RPI benefits of a reduction in VAT on fuel until the following year. His colleagues have rather craftily chosen the date of 1 September instead of later in that month. Would the hon. Gentleman care to be consistent?

Mr. Cranston: The Minister will reply specifically to the amendments in a moment. As for rolling monthly contracts—it will be a matter of looking at each contract separately. Is it an indivisible contract, or is it a series of separate contracts?

Mr. Loughton: So that is a no?

Mr. Cranston: I am not sure I even understood the hon. Gentleman's question—

Jacqui Smith: That is because there was none.

Mr. Cranston: Earlier, my hon. Friend dealt very well with the non-regressive intent behind clause 17, combined with the reduction in VAT.
Finally, even the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), on Second Reading, quoted the comments of Mr. William Laing, from the consultants dealing with these matters. He said that this tax relief—the hon. Member for Daventry did not quote the words exactly although he alluded to the report—was ridiculous and could not possibly be justified in terms of savings to the national health service. So all this spilt milk about the impact on the NHS is just so much hot air.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, or perhaps simply subsiding. The reason why I did not quote from Laing is that I quoted from the Economists Advisory Group study, which went into the arguments of Laing and his colleagues very thoroughly and in my view more than adequately exploded them.

Mr. Cranston: I am reminded of the particular point that the hon. Member for Daventry made on Second Reading. The report from the Economists Advisory Group shows that the abolition of the relief would mean at most 30,000 more persons using the NHS. That certainly does not stack up against the figure of 1 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Cranston: I am about to conclude my remarks.
The amendments are of no worth. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already dealt in writing with the points that they raise and will no doubt repeat in a moment what she has already explained.

Mr. Gibb: The amendment would mitigate some of the crudities in the implementation of a very unjust and vindictive clause. When she winds up the debate, the Financial Secretary will no doubt claim that clause 17 is so important that the Government must dismiss the amendments out of hand. She will no doubt say that the


Opposition have not presented a valid case showing that the tax relief introduced in 1990 increased the number of people over the age of 60 who took out medical insurance. She will say that, as a consequence, the Government have every right to ride roughshod over the House and to abolish the relief with no subtle amendments being accepted because the Government know best on this issue, as on everything else.

Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the Government who know best? In 1991, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. William Waldegrave—who, sadly, is no longer with us—admitted that the relief on private medical insurance had not worked very well, was expensive to administer, and had not been taken up very widely.

Mr. Gibb: Although there was a lack of take-up among people in the higher tax brackets, which is why in due course the relief was removed from them, there has been an enormous take-up among people over 60 in the basic rate tax bracket. I will give some figures in a moment.

Mr. Loughton: What we heard from the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) is just another outrageous version of short termism. The tax relief was introduced only in April 1990 and had hardly had a chance to get going.

Mr. Gibb: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
Figures show that in 1990 some 400,000 individuals over the age of 60 then had private medical insurance. By last year, the number had increased to 600,000—an increase of 50 per cent. The Financial Secretary will therefore be wrong if she claims that the amendment cannot be accepted because the Opposition have provided no proof that the relief had any effect. During that period, there was no overall increase in the number of people of all ages taking out private medical insurance, which proves incontrovertibly that the relief enabled more people over the age of 60 to take out private medical insurance.
Let us deal now with the issue of cost. The hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) claimed that Age Concern is more interested in improvements in the health service than in giving tax relief to the mere 5 per cent. of the population who have private medical insurance, but how will abolishing the relief have any positive effect on resourcing the NHS? If anything, it will have a devastatingly negative effect on resourcing the NHS as the Government push more people into dependency on the NHS.
According to the Red Book, abolition of this tax relief will raise £115 million. Grossed up, that figure corresponds to premiums of £500 million. If one assumes a claims-to-premium ratio of 80, as the industry does, it corresponds to £400 million of treatment costs. If one assumes, again as the industry does—and this is a conservative assumption—that if only one in three people give up their health insurance as a result of clause 17, that corresponds to £133 million-worth of medical treatment. Some people put the figure much higher, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford does on the basis of information that he has received.
Even if we take out of those figures the hotel costs that private medical insurance covers—they are not regarded by the industry as particularly significant—there is at best only a break-even position between what the Government will save and what they will have to spend in providing health treatment for the people who have given up their private medical insurance.
It is worse than that, however, because there is also a domino effect. As prices are increased generally for health insurance for the over-60s, more people will abandon that insurance, which in turn means that there will be fewer people to carry the burden of the risk, shoulder the costs and cross-subsidise one another. Even without the tax relief, prices will have to rise, which again means that even more people will have to leave their private medical insurance schemes.
That tallies with letters that I have received from my constituents. In my constituency, 36.6 per cent. of the population are retired and a large proportion of them have private medical insurance. They have written to me in great numbers expressing concern about the proposed abolition of private medical insurance relief. It is absurd that the Government should be introducing such a measure at a time when we are concerned about an ever-aging population and when there are increasing demands on the NHS. It is a cruel and vindictive policy.

Liz Blackman: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the proposal is so vindictive when the majority of taxpayers are paying twice—once for the NHS care that the majority receive and again for a relief that benefits the few?

Mr. Gibb: It is a tax break. It is the people who take out this insurance who are paying twice—once through their own taxes, although they rarely take up any benefit from that through the NHS, and again through their private medical insurance, which is what will cover their health care as and when they need it. The figures show that the proposal is vindictive. The Government are focusing the policy on a minority who have taken the trouble to pay twice.
Let us consider the figures: 28 per cent. of all hip operations take place in the private sector, 20 per cent. of all heart conditions are treated in the private sector and 20 per cent. of all acute conditions are dealt with in the private sector. Yet the Government want to damage the private sector. That is what I mean when I say that the proposal is vindictive. It will mean that fewer people have the opportunity to have hip operations or to have their heart conditions and acute conditions treated.

Liz Blackman: The hon. Gentleman's notion of choice and opportunity is a little skewed. The majority of taxpayers pay once to avail themselves of NHS treatment, and again through their tax contributions, part of which go towards private medical insurance relief. The point is that the majority of people do not have that choice: only the few who can afford private medical insurance—which is topped up by the many—have that choice.

Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady needs a lesson in mathematics, because tax relief on those premiums is worth only 20 per cent., whereas the claims-to-premium ratio is 80. Tax relief is therefore a fraction of the health care costs spent on people with private insurance who make claims to cover their treatment.
All that will happen if the relief is abolished and people leave the private sector and use the health service is that an enormous deficit will be created. The only reason why the NHS will break even rather than have a huge deficit under the policy is that two out of three people will grin and bear it and pay more. But for that fact, the policy would have a devastating impact on the NHS. The policy will not do the health service any good, however, and it will lead to a further stretching of resources. The policy is vindictive.
Only 10 per cent. of the population have taken out health insurance; yet the figures show that 28 per cent. of all hip operations and 20 per cent. of all heart operations are conducted in the private sector. As our population is growing ever older, why have the Government decided now to abolish the relief? The hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) spoke of extending choice and opportunity, but how have the Government extended choice and opportunity for people to take out private health insurance by making it more expensive?
The previous Labour Government abolished grant-aided schools, and how did their action increase choice and opportunity for people on low incomes to send their children to public and private schools? The policy resulted in more exclusive education and provided fewer opportunities for middle and lower-income people. Abolition of private health insurance relief will have the same effect. The policy demonstrates the same old vindictive Labour politics of envy and will achieve nothing, saving no money and placing a bigger and unsustainable burden on the NHS.
If relief were left in place, ever more pensioners would take out private medical insurance. There is no reason to believe that the trend from 1989 to 1996 of those taking out private medical insurance would not have continued, helping more people to receive more treatments in the private sector and relieving more of the burden on the NHS. That would allow more people who are dependent on the NHS to enjoy shorter waiting lists and to receive more treatments.
The Government should accept our amendment, because it would mitigate at least some of the problems caused by the policy. The Government should also take a less high-handed and arrogant stance. Most importantly, the Government should stop reverting to their old-Labour type by abolishing a greatly needed tax relief.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) described himself as "modest and diffident" in discussing amendment No. 1. To be fair, he attempted to discuss the minutiae of the amendment. The gaff was blown, however, by the hon. Members for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who made it quite clear that the intention of their group of amendments is not to deal with small anomalies but to have another go at the principle of removing relief on private medical insurance.
Today, we have debated the principle of removing relief in greater detail than we did in the debate on Second Reading, in which I and several other hon. Members in the Chamber spoke. In this debate, Conservative Members have gone so far as to suggest

that people who take out private health insurance are not so much exercising freedom of choice in the market as performing an altruistic function—helping the rest of us to get more out of the health service by spending their money on what they think is better service in the private sector. Such an assertion is ridiculous. Moreover, as I said in the previous debate, for Opposition Members to believe that the NHS can operate effectively only if people are bribed to leave it and to take out private medical insurance is an indictment of their views.

Mr. Flight: If 600,000 people simply left the private sector and received treatment in the state health sector, a massive increase in NHS funding would be necessary and taxes would have to be raised. The very crude point is that people, to the extent that they take out private insurance, are saving the NHS a major bill.

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman's point is extremely crude, and it was dealt with on Second Reading when we said that, despite the introduction of relief on private medical insurance, there was no significant increase in the number of people over 60 taking out private medical insurance. Conversely, therefore, removing the relief—in order to use that money for something much more worthy—will not result in a flood of people returning to the NHS. The hon. Gentleman not only made a crude point: he was inaccurate in the facts.
Conservative Members have made it clear that they are concerned only about the principle of relief on private medical insurance. As we said in the previous debate, trying to persuade people to take out private health insurance is not the way in which to defend the NHS—if that is what Conservative Members are interested in, although I doubt whether it is. Even if that were the best way of defending the NHS, the relief that we are debating has not proved to be particularly effective. As I said before, even William Waldegrave, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1991, admitted that the relief was not especially effective. As Labour Members have said, and as the previous Government admitted, the relief was not effective because the Conservative Government removed it at the higher rate. The relief, therefore, is not only unjust but it does not work.
Conservative Members should be honest. They are not concerned about the minutiae of the amendment.

Mr. Damian Green: The hon. Lady persists in mentioning that William Waldegrave was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1991. He was not Chief Secretary in 1991. That throws some doubt on her argument, which she is basing on something that is not true.

Jacqui Smith: If he was not Chief Secretary, I apologise. Nevertheless, the Conservative Government's reduction at the top rate gives credence to the belief that they did not think that the relief was working.
The basic point is that the group of amendments are not about the minutiae that the hon. Member for Daventry—but no other Conservative Members—


mentioned. To be fair, in Committee Conservative Members often raised very boring, but legitimate, points on the minutiae of the Bill.

Mr. Woodward: I am struck by the hon. Lady's comments. I should like to ask her to clarify one matter for Conservative Members. Is she saying that she is against private medicine in principle—yes or no?

Jacqui Smith: At no point have I said that I am against private medicine. I said—I will repeat it for the hon. Gentleman, almost word for word—that if people choose to go into the private market to buy private medical insurance for themselves, that would be fine by me, but I do not believe that it is right—

Mr. Woodward: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jacqui Smith: No.
It is not right that the vast majority of taxpayers should fund the private decisions of a few people to buy private medical insurance, because the money could be used in better ways. The money saved could be used in a progressive, not regressive, manner by funding the reduction in VAT on fuel—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) pointed out, the hon. Member for Guildford said is not regressive.
As we said on Second Reading, we have a clear choice: we can allow the many to subsidise the few in their private decision on private medical insurance, or we can use that money to reduce VAT bills for the many. The Government have made the choice, and Opposition Members will not get very far by haggling over the minutiae of the Bill as a cover for disagreeing with its principle.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) who made a speech from good old Labour, which opposes choice in the health service or any of our other great public services. Old Labour would really like to abolish all private medical facilities.
I would chastise my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) as his amendment does not go nearly far enough. I would have tabled an amendment to extend tax relief for at least another 10 years—then we would have been getting somewhere. The acid test is whether the clause benefits the national health service. Patently, the national health service will suffer as a result of its implementation.
I wonder whether Labour Members remember that one of the pledges on which they fought the general election was that to reduce NHS waiting lists by 100,000 people. Does the clause do anything to meet that pledge? No; it almost certainly makes it much more difficult to achieve.

Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, this time, he will stay to listen to the answers to his questions? Some of us were a bit shocked that in an earlier debate he made a strong point but did not bother to remain in the Chamber to hear the answer.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is a petty point from the hon. Gentleman, who has attended hardly any of

the Budget debates. He pops in to make silly interventions and then pops out again. That cannot be a sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Woodward: Had my hon. Friend remained in the Chamber, he would have discovered that a number of questions that had been put to the Financial Secretary, not least about whether the Government intend to scrap MIRAS next May—although that is now absolutely clear—were not answered. Had my hon. Friend been able to stay in the Chamber, he would have had rather an unsatisfactory time.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for enlightening me. Perhaps that was a good reason not to remain in the Chamber—I did not expect to get any answers—but I should be most grateful if the Financial Secretary would give me one positive answer this evening. We know how much money the measure will raise, as the figure is in the Red Book. I should like to know what the net costs to the health service will be.
We know that 13p in every pound paid out by PPP goes to the national health service. That amounts to about £220,000 a day or some £55 million a year. According to my local NHS trust, when private patients are treated in the national health service the marginal cost to the trust is about 20 per cent. That means that PPP alone is giving the national health service a profit of £11 million a year. Taking into account BUPA and all the other private health care providers, I suspect that the figure will equal, if not exceed, the £135 million that the measure will raise.
What on earth is the point of introducing a Budget measure that will cost the country and the national health service money? It is political dogma and hypocrisy at its absolute worst. It is absolute nonsense.
We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that 80 per cent. of medical insurance premiums are paid out in treatment costs. The private sector now treats 28 per cent. of all hip operations, 20 per cent. of all heart conditions and 20 per cent. of all acute conditions. It also treats a huge and increasing range of other ailments and conditions.
As people are living longer and are more affluent, perhaps we should give them a little more encouragement to use the private sector. The people who will be affected by the changes are those at the margins; it will not be right hon. and hon. Members who will retire on a parliamentary pension, but those who, throughout their lives, have saved a little bit of occupational or personal pension who will either trade down their policies and buy less expensive and less extensive cover so that when something serious goes wrong such as a heart condition they will be forced back to the national health service, or cease taking out a policy. That is much more serious for the country as, come what may, those people will be forced back to the national health service. When people are living longer and the previous Government introduced measures to encourage people to take out private pensions, it seems perverse to proceed with this policy.
There will be another serious effect on all private medical policies. As the numbers involved drop, the administration costs for those who are left will rise. When premiums rise because of the withdrawal of tax relief and


the increased administrative costs, even more people will drop out of the private sector and the national health service will be further disadvantaged.
I urge the Government to think carefully about the policy. It will hit a number of people at the margin, as has the reduction in MIRAS and the measures that affect savings accounts. All those measures will affect the middle classes—precisely the people who elected Labour to office. If the Government have any listening ear—which I doubt—I urge them to consider the measure very carefully.

Mr. Geraint Davies: We have heard a lot of hot air about the aims and objectives of the amendments in terms of clarity, fairness and helping the national health service. In my view, they represent a cynical attempt to frustrate the Government's efforts to bring about a fairer and more equitable system through the Budget measures relating to the health service and VAT on fuel.
The facts are clear and simple. We are all aware of the distorted industry views that the Opposition have obtained from various lobbyists with vested interests. The Inland Revenue has published figures that the Opposition have failed to read or to recognise. Between 1990 and 1997, the number of private medical contracts increased from 350,000 to 375,000—an increase of less than 10 per cent.—and the number of people involved rose from 500,000 to 550,000. At the time, the Opposition, then in government, were doing everything they could to make the distribution of power and wealth less equitable, so it is surprising that the number of people using the private sector increased by only 10 per cent. It is clear from the statistics that the demand for private medicine is not elastic at the margins and that the saving that the Government make as a result of the Budget measures will not result in a mass exodus from the private sector. That is rubbish.

Mr. Gibb: If the hon. Gentleman insists on quoting those figures, should he not also quote the overall figures for people of all ages who had private health insurance in the period he mentioned? I suspect that those figures would show a fall in the overall number taking out health insurance, demonstrating that the relief has encouraged those over 60 to take out private health insurance.

Mr. Davies: I think that the overall figure has grown. The relief pays public money to people to do something that they would do anyway. They are quite capable of paying for the services and will continue to do so. It is a regressive relief, in sharp contrast to our stance on VAT on fuel. The reduction in VAT on fuel will help health, because fewer old people will die of hypothermia and cold-related diseases. That is a good investment in public health.
I suspect that the Opposition really want a two-tier NHS in which some people are drained out to the private sector by bribing them with public money. That would undermine the universal stakeholding of the NHS and result in the atomised society that Lady Thatcher often spoke about. It would create an American-style system that costs more overall and leaves a large section of society with no health cover. That is their real agenda,

but the British people saw through it. That is why we have a Labour Government and why we shall make these changes.

9 pm

Mr. Woodward: We have heard much from the hon. Members for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) and for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) about principles. Principles matter a great deal. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central has made much of the importance of vested interests. He referred to the possible vested interests of my hon. Friends. I do not know what their vested interests may be, but my view is straightforward. When debating a health policy, we should always ask whether it will help the patient.
We are all aware that the national health service will consume as much money as can be put its way. There is nothing wrong with that. When resources allow, we should make more money available to the NHS to make more patients better. I am sure that nobody disagrees with that.
Labour Members have not addressed whether the clause will help patients. The NHS still has lengthy waiting lists. We hope to reduce waiting times, but the reality is that waiting lists exist. I do not approach these issues ideologically. In all cases, I apply the acid test. Will the clause help more patients to be treated more effectively and more quickly?
The clause is the application of old-fashioned Labour ideology. We heard from the hon. Member for Redditch a gross dislike of the principle of private medicine. She suggested that the measure was a way of clearing up tax distortions to create a fairer medical system. Is it fair if the measure leads to an individual having to wait even an hour longer?
Labour Members pooh-poohed private medical companies' suggestions that the measure will lead to people withdrawing from private medical insurance policies. It almost certainly will. Labour Members have made much of the suggestion that the changes in relief led to an increase of only 10 per cent. in take-up. Even if we apply the same standard and assume a decline of only 10 per cent. in the number taking up private medical policies, the money will still have to be found to fund those people.
Where will the money come from? We all accept that NHS waiting lists are too long. In their manifesto and in election speeches throughout the country, Labour Members made much of the importance of reducing waiting lists yet, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, their policy will mean that waiting lists have to increase. They will increase because some people will decide that this measure is the straw that breaks the camel's back—the moment when, due to the loss of relief, they can no longer afford to continue the policy.

Liz Blackman: Several of my hon. Friends have made the point that the amendments are merely a smokescreen—and not a very good one—to hide Opposition Members' total opposition to the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman is merely illustrating that point. I do not think that he has once touched on the amendments.

Mr. Woodward: The hon. Lady—if she would be kind enough to listen to the answer that she sought—is much concerned suddenly with not discussing the principle. She has suddenly been faced with the reality. She must realise that the statement is effectively, "No, we shall not in any


way encourage private medicine." In the name of distortion removing, it is possible to remove tax relief from those who would seek to spend their money—and exercise their choice and freedom—on enhancing their medical coverage.
Elsewhere in the Budget, however, the Government will provide as many tax reliefs as they like, such as in the film business. There is an obvious contradiction in the Government's policy. When it comes to pleasing their own particular sector, they are more than happy to provide any tax relief that is requested, but when it comes to looking after patients, due to their ideological principles, bang: down comes the scythe and they will not help people who wish to help themselves.
The kernel is that the Labour party still believes in good old-fashioned Labour envy. It wants to remove the opportunities of those who have saved and remove the opportunities that come from freedom and choice. We see that in the way the Government will sponsor tax relief on films but remove it from those who wish to make proper provision for themselves in their old age.

Mr. Swayne: May I point out to Labour Members that it is precisely because we are so wholly opposed to the principle of the measure that we are attempting to secure, on the basis of the amendments, some narrow relief for the categories that have been described?
I draw to the House's attention the extraordinary topsy-turvy world in which Labour Members appear to live. It has been suggested by a number of them that those who benefit from the relief are somehow getting something unfairly in comparison with other taxpayers. The word "subsidised" was used. The reality is the opposite. It is very simple, but I shall explain it for the benefit of Labour Members.
Someone who is over 60 years old and therefore benefiting from this relief would, having paid their taxes throughout their life, be entitled to NHS health care. Indeed, even if they had not paid those taxes they would still be entitled to NHS health care. Should they find that they need, for example, a hip replacement operation, they would be entitled to apply to the NHS for the operation.
However, this person applies instead to their insurance company and has a private health care operation. The Exchequer and the NHS therefore benefit from the fact that, although a person was entitled to make a claim and therefore incur a charge against the NHS, they have not done so, preferring to take advantage of payments that they have made throughout their life—certainly in the latter part of their life. Far from being smitten by a bill, the taxpayer has enjoyed a relief. In fact, with tax relief at 20 per cent., the general taxpayer has had something of a bargain.

Dawn Primarolo: Follow that! I decided, before today's debate, to consult the book written by Nigel Lawson, now Lord Lawson, called "The View from No. 11", because I thought that he might have something to say about the introduction of relief for private medical insurance. He does, and very interesting reading it makes. On pages 616 to 617, he describes his opposition to the implementation of private medical insurance relief for the over-60s. He says that he was forced to introduce it by the then Prime Minister and that
I duly introduced it, trying to conceal my embarrassment, in my 1989 Budget.

Clearly, that embarrassment continues this evening as Conservative Members seek to defend a relief which, even when it was introduced, their own party seriously questioned—Conservatives questioned whether it was right to give a subsidy to people who had already decided to take out private medical insurance.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me why taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise activities in which individuals had already decided to engage.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: As the Financial Secretary has read the excellent book by Lord Lawson so carefully, can she tell the House of any other lessons that she has learnt from it, which she intends to implement in future Budgets?

Dawn Primarolo: None of that relates to this clause. To put the record straight, when the relief was introduced in 1990 by the Conservative Government, there were 350,000 contracts for private medical insurance in this category, covering some 500,000 people. There are now only 375,000 contracts, covering at most 550,000 people, and that clearly shows that the relief has subsidised action that people had already decided to take. Clause 17 has nothing to do with choice or forcing people to use the national health service. It is a question of how taxpayers' money is used to benefit the majority, not a tiny minority. This Government have already given £1.2 billion extra to the national health service, so we will take no lessons from Opposition Members about investment in it.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) first raised the question of contracts during our debate in the Committee of the whole House. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that a contract arises when an offer is made and accepted. Had the notes on clauses meant written contracts only, they would have said so. I did not seek to mislead the hon. Gentleman about verbal contracts. He raised the fear that companies that operate through telephone sales will lose out. I think—I shall say this very delicately, in case I affront the hon. Gentleman—that that fear springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of the terms of clause 17. The clause is silent on verbal contracts. If an eligible medical insurance contract has been entered into before 2 July, it will attract relief until it expires. That is verbal and written.
I had no intention of misleading the hon. Gentleman; I simply assumed that he interpreted "contracts" in the same way as I do. This is not a matter for the Inland Revenue, but a matter of contract law. I cannot debate the niceties of contract law with the hon. Gentleman, because, as I said, I am not a lawyer, but that is the advice that I was given by the Revenue, and that was my understanding when I gave the hon. Gentleman the answer that I gave him in the previous debate.

Mr. Boswell: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Boswell: I was only going to say, "So far, so good."

Dawn Primarolo: That is a relief, although not one that costs a great deal of money.
9.15 pm
The next issue that was raised related to contracts made before 2 July, but commencing after that date. An insurance contract can be written so that the period covered does not commence on the date on which the contract is legally entered into, but commences at some date in the future. Opposition Members referred to that. Clause 17 would not stop such contracts attracting tax relief, unless an insurance company tried to be too clever by half and entered into a contract before that date. The contract would then cover a period longer than a year, but it would not qualify for relief.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The Financial Secretary is being very helpful. Will she make it absolutely clear, however, that if a contract renewal was agreed before that cut-off date of 2 July, but the natural period for renewal was a 12-month period beginning shortly after 2 July, the renewal would nevertheless attract relief for the full period?

Dawn Primarolo: No, it would not attract relief for the whole period, because it would now be for a longer period than the 12 months. There would have been a false start, in that there would have been an attempt to sign a contract before 2 July, when the starting period was well after that date.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I beg to differ in regard to the interpretation that can be put on the hon. Lady's letter to me. In the normal course of business, some insurance companies—including one in my constituency, which told me about this—send out renewal contracts before the renewal date, and receive confirmation of renewal before that date. Those companies will, therefore, have received confirmation of renewal before 2 July, for a regular 12-month period that starts shortly after 2 July. I should have thought that, given that a genuine contract had been made for a regular 12-month period, it would be reasonable to expect such a contract to be given the normal relief.

Dawn Primarolo: No, because the contract period starts after that date. The relief—and, following that, the transition—relates to contracts made before 2 July.
May I now deal with what the hon. Gentleman said about monthly contracts?

Mr. St. Aubyn: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: May I just make this point?
The hon. Gentleman asked when a contract was a monthly contract and when it was not, and how the Inland Revenue interpreted the position. The Revenue has had discussions with a number of insurance companies, and with the Association of British Insurers. They have made it clear that they consider the overwhelming majority of these so-called monthly contracts to be annual and, therefore, caught within the relief as it is proposed. It is possible, however, that there are 3,000 or 4,000 truly monthly contracts. The relief applies only for the period of the contract—the month—because that is the trigger.
The point that the hon. Member for Guildford raised in connection with the company in his constituency is now well understood. This is not a concession from the Inland

Revenue. It is how normal business is done with regard to those contracts. That information about the present situation has been made clear to the ABI and a number of other organisations.

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Lady said in her letter to me:
the relief is withdrawn … in respect of all contracts made on or after Budget day. Contracts made before then are not affected.
It seems from that statement and from my careful reading of it in conjunction with the Bill that, if a contract is genuinely entered into before 2 July, but the start date—for normal commercial reasons—is slightly after, it will be recognised. After all, it was made before the critical date of the Budget, without any cognisance of what the Budget might contain. It would seem unfair for people who have committed themselves to making payments with the benefit of the tax relief to find on Budget day that the contract was suddenly superseded.
In the debate on 16 July, the hon. Lady may recall that I made an analogy with contracts for the exchange of property, in which case if the contract is exchanged before Budget day but completion happens afterwards, the old rate of duty applies. That is accepted on all sides. This is an analogous case. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to answer that point.

Dawn Primarolo: The renewal itself does not necessarily make a contract. This a grey area. If the policyholder agrees, that is okay, but it is not the normal course of events. A renewal is sent out and then the person concerned agrees it. That is not covered, and I think that that is the point the hon. Gentleman is making.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I realise that she is doing her best and attending to these matters in detail. May I check on that last point? If she is saying that the renewal is not by itself a contract because the contract does not come into force until after the operative date, can the policyholder—the person who has taken out the new policy or the renewal—rescind that policy, given the change in circumstances? This is a critical issue. If people are trapped in contracts on one assumption and cannot fulfil them because of a change in the tax relief, it is particularly inequitable.

Dawn Primarolo: That is the concept of a binding contract—an offer made and an acceptance. If a contract is made before, even if it starts after, 2 July, that is covered by clause 17. I was genuinely trying to explain that that is not an absolute, blanket rule. If the period of one year, which is the maximum for which relief is provided under the clause, is exceeded, all cases will not be covered. It is a combination—the contract and the 12-month period.
I genuinely believe that the Government have been extremely generous in providing for transitional relief and the fair phasing out of the relief for those people, the overwhelming majority of whom have, until now, been receiving a relief—a subsidy—for action that they would otherwise still have taken. All the forecasts and the predictions about the likely impact—how many people will give up their insurance—are exactly that: predictions from the very industry that is seeking the preserve the


relief, or subsidy, to the few. The Armageddon painted by Conservative Members simply does not bear scrutiny. The hon. Member for St. Albans—

Mr. St. Aubyn: Guildford.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—it has been a long day. The hon. Member for Guildford made his opening remarks on the basis, first, that I misled the House about contracts, and I have demonstrated to him that I did not; and secondly, that I said about the impact of the removal that there was no indication at the present time that people would cancel their insurance, and I stand by that claim. Already insurance companies are doing their best to ensure that they keep the business that they had before the relief and during the relief, and I have no doubt that they will maintain it after the relief is removed.
The measure is fair, removing a privileged position from the few and ensuring that the resources are spent for the benefit of the many. I sincerely hope that the House will accept—

Mr. Loughton: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I have already taken lots of interventions.
I sincerely hope that the House will now accept that the proposals in the clause are fair, equitable and just to those who currently have a benefit that they should not have; and that they will enable those people to adjust to changes made to ensure that resources can be used instead for the benefit of the many and of the national health service.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having allowed, in the debate on amendment No. 1, a much wider debate on clause 17. As a result of that wider debate, it must have been realised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that there is a real difference of opinion about the effect of the clause, not only on those who take out health insurance, but on the availability of the health service to all members of our society.
The numbers involved have been a matter of dispute. Indeed, the hon. Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston) questioned my competence when I was merely quoting an authoritative study from the Economists Advisory Group. The study clearly showed that where a tax relief is costed by the Revenue at £120 million rising to £140 million over the next few years, the amount of tax relief is 23p in the pound and the typical insurance cost is less than £700, it is easy to see how nearly 1 million people will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the abolition of the relief. Those are the advisory group's figures, not mine; I know that other industry estimates quote smaller numbers.

Mr. Cranston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: No—there is so little time.
There is a wide range of estimates, but they all come up with big figures for those affected—upwards of half a million people and perhaps as many as 1 million. We can

also be quite sure that there will therefore be a knock-on cost, which will be measured in tens of thousands, if not more, as a result of the withdrawal of the relief.

Mr. Gibb: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. St. Aubyn: Yes, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members: There is no time to give way.

Mr. Gibb: I just want to make an important point about the figures that the Inland Revenue has supplied to the Financial Secretary. Given that this is a relief applied at source, is it not the case that there tend to be inaccuracies in the Inland Revenue figures, because there is no necessity for such figures to be reported to it? The figures relating to MIRAS from the Inland Revenue are similarly inaccurate.

Mr. St. Aubyn: That point is well made. The figures involved are speculative. The most speculative part of the project is the theory that there will be no cancellations of policies and no oncost to the health service.

Mr. Geraint Davies: rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn: I will deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) later.
The hon. Member for Dudley, North has said that this is a matter of general law, which need not trouble the House. The whole point of our argument has been summed up in the words of the Financial Secretary, who said that there are grey areas in the law. That is why we sought clarification. When we found that there was no such clarification in the clause or in the explanatory notes from the Inland Revenue, we felt let down, at the very least.
9.30 pm
The hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) said that we regard the effect of the clause and the lifting of VAT on fuel as regressive, while she tried to argue that it was progressive. They say progressive, we say regressive, let's call the whole thing off. If they will not call the whole thing off, they should at least implement it fairly and squarely.
In that respect, I thank the Financial Secretary for offering clarification on the matters about which we have diligently sought it. We have done so, not because we feel that we should instantly understand such matters—and if we do not, no one else will—but because major companies in the industry, including one that happens to be in my constituency, were genuinely concerned. They felt, according to the hon. Lady's words, that there were genuinely grey areas in the law. They were concerned that they could promote health insurance policies to their customers with the benefit of tax relief, only for those customers to find later in the year, when their tax inspector looked at their returns, that that relief was to be disallowed.
What the Financial Secretary has said has clarified the issue greatly, but I am still concerned about her approach to monthly contracts. The information from the insurance provider in my constituency reveals that if the rules on monthly contracts are not interpreted in the most


favourable way, upwards of 20,000-odd contracts which it has outstanding will be immediately affected. I note that the Financial Secretary shakes her head. I listened carefully to what she said about monthly contracts; she has assured us that no more than a few thousand at the very most might be inadvertently affected by the way in which the relief is phased out.
The hon. Lady quoted Lord Lawson. It is always a pleasure to hear Labour Members quoting eminent Conservatives, but it is always disappointing that they are so selective in their quotations. I remember from the same book that one of its clarion calls was for clarity in tax legislation. That is what is lacking from clause 17. I fear that the hon. Lady has not read the entire book, but she appears to have gained the spirit from Lord Lawson that such clarity is needed in the clause.
As a result of the process, we are grateful for achieving a measure of clarity. On that basis, I do not believe that it is necessary to put the amendment to a formal vote.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 49

STAMP DUTY ON CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER ON SALE

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 47, line 32, after first 'of' insert
'£1 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration up to £250,000, and at the rate of'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, line 33, after 'consideration;', insert 'in excess of £250,000'.

No. 9, line 34, after 'case', insert—

'(i) the rate of £1 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration up to £250,000,
(ii) the rate of £1.50 for every £100 or part of £100 of the consideration over £250,000 but below £500,000, and
(iii)'.

No. 10, line 35, after 'consideration', insert 'over £500,000'.

Mr. Boswell: We come now to stamp duty. For a Tory, there is a certain nostalgic affection for a tax introduced 303 years ago, which has been doing its business for the nation ever since with comparatively little fuss and very little scrutiny in this place. There is a certain nostalgia about a tax whose head legislation is the Stamp Duty Act 1891, updated, of course, by electronic systems for data, especially in relation to securities, and the stamp duty reserve tax—also, I believe, introduced by Lord Lawson—which will raise, according to Government proposals, more than £3 billion in the current year, and which, significantly, was last increased in 1974. I wonder which party was in power when stamp duty was last increased.
By way of introduction, I have a short piece of advice for the Financial Secretary. When the Bill is out of the way, perhaps she will spare a little time to go down to Bush house and see the Stamp Office in operation. I had occasion to do so, on re-registering some of my children's securities. There are not many of those securities, but when the children reached the age of 18 the securities

needed to be upgraded by a 50p stamp to put them in their own name. It was money well spent to see the people marking and stamping those documents. I am not sure that it raised much revenue, but it certainly is an interesting place to visit.
I now come to the substance of our amendments, and of the important changes—so far undiscussed because of the guillotine—that the Government propose. Before the Budget, my attention was drawn to a positive flurry of three economic reports, which were submitted to the Chancellor and may have modestly influenced his thinking for the better. There were Miller and Scott on residential property, Barber and White on commercial property, and the Centre for Economics and Business Research on the overall economic impact. Collectively, they may have stopped in their tracks the slightly sillier ideas that the Government had to increase stamp duty to 6 or 7 per cent. If they did so, I am very pleased.
A strange set of proposals for stamp duty has emerged, however. First, there is very little impact indeed on the residential property market. It seems likely that this proposal will affect 30,000 residential properties in a full year—between 1 and 1.5 per cent. of the residential property market, amounting to a full year yield of about £130 million. Arguably, therefore, the average cost per dwelling of those affected is about £4,000, which is a small impact on a small proportion of residential properties, by definition exceeding £250,000 in value.
Interestingly, today's press reports make it clear that among those who pay the tax will be the Prime Minister, who has recently disposed of his property for rather more than £600,000, and will therefore pay £6,000 extra—but he need not worry too much because he has trousered a capital gain in excess of £200,000 on it anyway, and there is no windfall tax on those capital gains.
At any rate, the Government cannot seriously argue that this set of proposals has a significant impact on the prices of residential property. If there were a boom, if there were over-heating—the evidence for that remains questionable—it would still represent a peashooter approach to tackling it.
On the other hand, the true effect is felt in the commercial property sector. Interestingly, according to the Government's figures, three quarters of the revenue of stamp duty in the property sector is raised on residential property, but three quarters of the increase will affect the commercial property sector—one quarter of the market. Some 20,000 such properties will be affected annually.
This is, therefore, yet another hit on business, and it is entirely consistent with the approach adopted by the Government elsewhere in the Budget. It is the sort of measure which gives rise to the International Monetary Fund saying, in a report which Labour Members have cited as positive for them, that something will have to be done about consumer spending elsewhere because the Government have not had the courage to tackle it now. That is a judgment which the Government need to take.
Estimates in the surveys to which I referred are that, as pension funds and insurance companies own some £60 billion of commercial property in this country, stamp duty is likely to affect the valuation of their funds by an estimated £300 million alone on pension funds and a larger sum on insurance funds. It would therefore chime in nicely with the changes in advance corporation tax, which have seriously damaged those


interests in the Budget. It is yet another indirect hit on the citizen through the medium of business. For that reason, if for no other, we criticise it severely and will oppose it tonight.
My next point may be smaller, but is, none the less, significant. In their anxiety to shield the residential property sector, the Government have put a burden not merely on the commercial sector and real property but on other kinds of property transfer by document. For example, the Institute of Directors pointed out that stamp duty covers transfers of good will, intellectual property, of which I have some knowledge, and so forth. At any rate, the Financial Secretary may care to offer a figure for the breakdown of the impact between commercial property and the other kinds of property swept up by the clause.
Our main concern and the substance of the amendments is the structure of the duty. It is interesting that the bulk of stamp duty is still raised from marketable securities, which attract—in current circumstances it is reasonable that they should continue to attract—a separate 0.5 per cent. rate of duty. Indeed, if the rate were to rise any higher, it would severely damage London's competitiveness as a financial centre.
May I return to real property, which is the subject of the amendments? We now have an extraordinary situation. Under the old arrangements applicable until the Budget, there was a zero rate for properties under £60,000 and one positive rate of 1 per cent. thereafter. We now have an unchanged zero rate, but three positive rates: 1 per cent. for properties up to £250,000; 1.5 per cent. for properties worth between £250,000 and £500,000; and 2 per cent. for properties worth more than that, which applied to the Prime Minister.
I admit that ever since the 1960s when I first became involved in taxation policy, I have always disliked the way in which the stamp duty system operates. It operates on a "slab" rather than a "slice" system. Tax is charged up to a certain threshold, and the rate is then increased for the whole of the charge thereafter—not for the first tranche with a different rate for the next tranche, but right through on the whole amount. That gives rise to some unsatisfactory effects. It may be another byproduct of the Government's haste in introducing their legislation this summer that they have been unable to redesign the system and come up with a smoother progression.
My objections to the slab system are that, given that the rates are very small—1 to 2 per cent.—there is little progressivity within the slabs. Whatever the figures are between £60,000 and £250,000, whether the house is comparatively small or large, the charge is the same.
9.45 pm
Given a low rate of, say, 1.5 per cent., the change in value between—I choose two arbitrary figures—a house of £275,000 and one of £276,000 would be £15 extra tax. That is hardly a material difference. The case is, however, entirely different at the margin, which is the substance of the amendments.
If one moves across the margin into a new tax rate, it triggers the higher rate throughout the whole cost. The Institute of Directors, for example, pointed out that a move in value from £250,000 to £251,000 would

move up the duty from £2,500 to £3,765. That is an extra tax not of £15 on exactly the same step as in the example that I quoted for a property of higher value, but of £1,265 on an increase in value of £1,000. That is a marginal rate of 126.5 per cent., by my calculation.
If the property were on offer and the contract was made at £250,001, almost exactly the same tax hike would take effect, but the marginal rate would reach the stratosphere.
In practice, of course—this is a bad sign for tax propriety—vendors, purchasers and their professional advisers will move heaven and earth at the marginal points to try to prevent the situation arising. All manner of deals will be done with the furniture or excluding the light bulbs to bring the value below the magic threshold. That is a bad way of conducting taxation.
The Institute of Directors proposes a slice system. Although it is silent on the first £60,000, which is of course tax free at present, the taxable rate, as I understand the proposal, would be 1 per cent. on the first £250,000 of value, 1.5 per cent. on the next £250,000 of value, and 2 per cent. thereafter.
Without access to the full Revenue figures, it is complex to work out the likely implications of trying to balance the revenue. I strongly suspect, particularly given the facts that I have mentioned, that we would be able to secure the same revenue with only small adjustments in the bands, and that the system would be a great deal fairer.
The amendments show an unfairness in the structure of the stamp duty that the Government have introduced. We do not like the changes because they are skewed towards the commercial sector, as the Government have run away from taxing the personal sector. We would prefer the Financial Secretary to withdraw the proposals tonight. We will put that to a vote.
In any case, if, given the exigencies of time, the Financial Secretary does not feel that she can adequately reply to the debate tonight, I hope that she and her advisers will go away and think about a better structure to operate in the future. There was no problem with the previous rates, but the changes that the Government have made by evolution from the traditional structure have created gross unfairness and will do significant damage.

Mr. Gibb: We have already seen an example tonight of old Labour emerging from behind the mask of new Labour, with its antipathy to medical insurance.
With the doubling of the rate of stamp duty, we hark back to the era of the last Labour Government. The first Budget of that Government, on 26 March 1974, did precisely the same as the present Budget in doubling the rate of stamp duty from 1 to 2 per cent. Fortunately, in a subsequent Conservative Budget in March 1984, the rate of stamp duty was reduced again to 1 per cent.
It has always been my view that stamp duty should be repealed. In today's society, there is no longer a role for stamp duty. It was my hope that the previous Government had as a long-term aim the ultimate abolition of this anachronistic tax. Labour Members may recall that in the 1990 Budget, the Chancellor began the process of abolishing stamp duty on share


transactions, a move which was linked to the implementation of the TAURUS computer system in the London stock exchange. Alas, with the demise of that system, so went the abolition of stamp duty on share prices. I am, however, still hopeful that a future Conservative Government will get round to abolishing stamp duty on shares and on property transactions.
This Government are moving in the opposite direction. They have begun their period in office by doubling the rate of stamp duty which will raise £240 million in 1997–98 and £490 million in 1998–99. It is another example of this Government scrabbling for every penny, oblivious of the damage to the wider economy that such measures cause. They are oblivious to the 0.06 per cent. fall in GDP as a result of this one measure and they are oblivious to the thousands of job losses it will cause, particularly in the construction industry. Those are facts, according to the Centre for Economic and Business Research which has shown that there will be a fall of 0.75 per cent. in private housing sector output as a result of this measure. The Government appear to be oblivious to all the indirect and unforeseen consequences of this one Budget measure, which is being implemented simply to scrabble extra millions for their long-term spending plans.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, stamp duty applies to business properties as well as to residential properties. It applies, for example, to the transfer of good will and to businesses whose sale or disposal requires transfer by document. Those documents have to be stamped with a rate of 1 per cent. and, now, some will be stamped with a rate of 2 per cent.
This measure will hit the commercial sector disproportionately harder than the residential sector, yet we were told that it was introduced to help to dampen down the residential property market. Three quarters of all stamp duty is paid by the residential sector, but three quarters of the stamp duty increase will fall on the commercial side.
The measure will distort business. Throughout much of the Budget, proposals are implemented for one purpose, but the results are completely the opposite. Although the Budget is meant generally to take the heat out of the domestic housing market, the abolition of tax credits on dividends receivable by pension funds, for example, will shift billions of pounds of investment from UK equities into the commercial and residential property sectors, thereby fuelling price increases. It will, therefore, have precisely the opposite effect from that intended.
The increase in stamp duty is an attack on home ownership and it joins the other attacks on home ownership in the Budget. We have had the phasing down of MIRAS, we have had three interest rate rises in as many months, and now we have the increase in stamp duty. It is yet another of the many examples of distorting measures in the Budget.
Clause 8, for example, will end the freezing of duty on beer. That will distort the market in beer and will lead to higher levels of smuggling. Clause 19 introduces a distorting measure with the abolition of ACT credits which will mean massive changes to the investment

policies of pension funds and other institutions in the City. We have seen the distorting effects of clause 20; the abolition of section 242 relief will have an effect on open-ended investment companies. We have also seen the distorting effect of clause 30 with the abolition of tax credits for non-tax-paying individuals, whereas we are keeping tax credits for higher-rate and basic-rate taxpayers. There are also distorting effects in clause 42, with the implementation of temporary first-year allowances for only small and medium-sized enterprises.
The amendment is designed to end the slab scale of the previous stamp duty regime. The intention behind it is the introduction of a rising scale of stamp duty measures so that we do not have yet another distorting measure. For example, if someone happens to be selling a house at a price that approaches one of the arbitrary sums imposed by the Government—£60,000, £250,000 or £500,000—there is an enormous difference when it comes to consideration of whether the contract should be one of those sums. Sellers and buyers will go to enormous lengths to recategorise the assets that are being sold, such as fixtures and fittings or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said, light bulbs or light switches. The Government's proposal will have an enormous distorting effect in the marketplace.
The amendment will do much to reduce or eliminate one of the many distorting effects introduced by the Government in the Budget. I hope that it will be agreed to.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) having been signalled to resume his place by his colleagues, I shall make a few comments before we conclude this evening's proceedings.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made four points, one of which had some substance. I shall return to it briefly. First, he invited my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to visit Bush house to watch the stamping process. As a legal apprentice, I watched documents being stamped on many occasions, and fascinating is not a word which I would use to describe the process. I would say, however, that the opportunity to get out of the office, especially on a nice, hot summer's day, was something which I and all my fellow apprentices used to welcome.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Daventry said that we might have had more time to discuss these matters had it not been for the guillotine. I shall not pretend to be the best attender of debates in Standing Committee, because my other duties kept me elsewhere, but I have read the reports of the proceedings. If Conservative Members had not spent so much time discussing their Welsh mothers, tours of south America and various other discursions on Americanisms and other matters, there might have been more time to spend on the Bill. I have come to the conclusion, as have many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that Conservative Members seemed determined never to finish consideration of the Bill because they wanted to claim that the guillotine was operating against them.
It is said that there is no overheating in the economy, especially in the housing market. I suppose that that will always be a matter of judgment. Suffice it to say


that we reached the judgment that action was necessary to encourage stability in the housing market. I think that we would have the support of many members of the public, bearing in mind the heavy price that the paid for the unsustainable housing boom that wa caused by the Conservative party's policies in the 1980s. We can agree to disagree, but we believed that action was necessary. Our proposal will raise valuable revenue. We do not shrink from the fact that that revenue is needed to finance the debt reduction programme that is necessary because of the large level of debt that we inherited from the outgoing Conservative Government.

Mr. Woodward: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Darling: No. I do not have time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Indeed, he has not spoken in the short debate to which I am responding.
I take up the one issue raised by the hon. Member for Daventry that had some substance, although I do not agree with the conclusion that he reached. Should we have a slice system or confine ourselves to what he described as a slab system? The slab system may have problems and in some respects it may be deficient, but it is the system which the Conservative Government operated in the 1970s. Indeed, it is the same system that the Conservative Administration operated in th early 1990s.
It is possible to have a slice system—I do not quarrel with that—and the amendment, if agreed to, would result in quite a significant loss of revenue. For that reason alone, I would recommend the House should reject it. But the suggestion that not introducing a slice system would be negligent does not stand up. The hon. Member for Daventry claims that he has wished something could be done ever since he started studying taxation, but he did nothing over the past 18 years while the Conservatives presided. I recognise the problems to which he has referred, but I believe that the proposal in the Bill is the right one. I urge my right hon. an hon. Friends to reject the amendment and to support the clause as it stands.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 367.

Division No.70]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael



Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Baldry, Tony
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bercow, John



Blunt, Crispin
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brady, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel





Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gray, James
Ruffley, David


Green, Damian
St Aubyn, Nick


Greenway, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Grieve, Dominic
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Soames, Nicholas


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hawkins, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Horam, John
Streeter, Gary


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Syms, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy


Key, Robert
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tredinnick, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Trend, Michael


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Viggers, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wardle, Charles


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Woodward, Shaun


MacKay, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mates, Michael
Sir David Madel and


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. James Cran.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Berry, Roger


Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)
Best, Harold


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atkins, Charlotte
Boateng, Paul


Baker, Norman
Borrow, David


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brand, Dr Peter


Battle, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Buck, Ms Karen


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burden, Richard






Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Byers, Stephen
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorrie, Donald


Church, Ms Judith
Graham, Thomas


Clapham, Michael
Grant, Bernie


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coaker, Vernon
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)
Hanson, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cooper, Yvette
Harris, Dr Evan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Harvey, Nick


Corston, Ms Jean
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cousins, Jim
Healey, John


Cox, Tom
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cranston, Ross
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Crausby, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Hesford, Stephen


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hill, Keith


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoon, Geoffrey


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hopkins, Kelvin


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Darvill, Keith
Howells, Dr Kim


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dawson, Hilton
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dean, Mrs Janet
Hurst, Alan


Denham, John
Hutton, John


Dismore, Andrew
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dobbin, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Doran, Frank
Jamieson, David


Dowd, Jim
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Drown, Ms Julia
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Edwards, Huw
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Ennis, Jeff



Etherington, Bill
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Fearn, Ronnie
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Fisher, Mark
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Flynn, Paul
Keetch, Paul


Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S





King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kirkwood, Archy
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Primarolo, Dawn


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prosser, Gwyn


Laxton, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lepper, David
Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Rapson, Syd


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Linton, Martin
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Livingstone, Ken



Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Stephen
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ruane, Chris


Macdonald, Calum
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Salter, Martin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Shaw, Jonathan


Mallaber, Judy
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Singh, Marsha


Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin
Soley, Clive


Moffatt, Laura
Southworth, Ms Helen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mountford, Kali
Stott, Roger


Mudie, George
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stunell, Andrew


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Edward
Swinney, John


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Öpik, Lembit



Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Perham, Ms Linda
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pound, Stephen
Trickett, Jon






Truswell, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)



Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tyler, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Wood, Mike


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wray, James


Wallace, James
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David
Wyatt, Derek


Webb, Professor Steve



White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. John McFall and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [14 July] and Resolution [this day].

Bill, not amended (in the Committee), and as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX

That the Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1997 (S. I., 1997, No. 1627), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 31st July, do adjourn till Monday 27th October.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS

Ordered,
That Janet Anderson, Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. George Mudie, Ms Linda Perham, Sir Raymond Powell, Mr. Syd Rapson and Mr. David Rendel be members of the Accommodation and Works Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. James Cran, Mr. David Crausby, Mr. Hilton Dawson, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Jane Kennedy, Mrs. Marion Roe and Mr. William Ross be members of the Administration Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CATERING

Ordered,
That Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Mr. Stephen Day, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Helen Jones, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Dr. John Marek and Mr. Dennis Turner be members of the Catering Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

INFORMATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Michael Connarty, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mrs. Sandra Osborne, Mr. Phil Sawford and Mr. John Whittingdale be members of the Information Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Peter Brooke, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson, Mr. John Grogan, Mr. Andrew Hunter, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Mr. Tony McWalter, Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Peter Robinson and Mr. Martin Salter be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.—[Mr. George Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

TRANSPORT AND WORKS

That the draft Transport and Works (Guided Transport Modes) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

BROADCASTING

Ordered,
That Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Eric Clarke, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. George Galloway, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Andrew Stunell, Mr. Mike Wood and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of Select Committee on Broadcasting.—[Mr. George Mudie.]

Genetic Patenting

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Matthew Taylor: On 15 July, the European Parliament discussed and approved the proposed EC directive for the legal protection of biotechnological inventions or gene patenting. That decision reversed the position of the European Parliament in 1995 and the Labour party's position at the time. It is likely to have far-reaching and uncertain consequences. For that reason, I am immensely grateful that the House has afforded me the opportunity to air the concerns of a great many people.
Since it was announced that I had been successful in the ballot for the debate, I have been contacted by many organisations and individuals, including my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who hope to make some brief comments tonight. I know that we are not alone in our concerns. The Government's view on the issue appears to be confused. I welcome the Minister's presence tonight and I hope that he can clarify where the Government stand and how they will respond to the debate that is now emerging.
I have been told that several organisations, including the Women's Environmental Network and the Gaia Foundation wrote to the Minister in advance of the European Parliament vote requesting the Government's views. At least one—the Women's Environmental Network—was told that the British Government were awaiting the final text from the European Commission. As the Government's position was not made clear, it assumed that a position had not been taken in advance of seeing the final text of the directive.
Meanwhile, the Minister informed a scientific political adviser at Greenpeace that the Government intended to hold a public meeting for all interest groups once the text of the Commission's amended draft was known. Again, it appeared that the Labour Government were prepared to listen and consult before taking a final position.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on that approach, which I believe to be correct, but I cannot do so because, on the same day that that letter was written, another letter was winging its way across Europe to United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. That letter, also from the Minister, was also about the forthcoming vote, but its message was rather different. It explained how important the new Government considered the directive to be for the future of the United Kingdom and European biotechnology industry and urged all Members of the European Parliament to vote for the directive.
I do not intend to be over critical as I wish to raise some important issues, but it is important that the Minister explains how those conflicting statements came to be made. More importantly, as I want to look forward rather than back, will the Minister outline the Government's current position on what is still an emerging discussion that has not reached its final conclusions? Is he for or against a fuller debate and if he is in favour should it not be before rather than after urging support for the directive in Europe?
Liberal Democrats are not opposed to new and appropriate technology. I have listened to the arguments of those in favour of the directive who have been as vocal as those who are against it. However, a recognition of the potential that genetic engineering offers must not lead us to set aside consideration of the possible pitfalls. Above all, we should not encourage faster development here—as the directive will do in practice—in order simply to protect the United Kingdom's competitive position at the cost of long-term risks.
The draft directive would allow human body parts, including DNA, genes and cells, to be patentable outside the human body even though they have an identical structure to their natural counterparts. The directive would also cover cloned animals and genetically engineered food.
Industry says that it needs the directive. It argues that every year the pharmaceutical industry produces new, innovative products that relieve suffering, create employment and reward investors who fund research. For that potential to be realised, those who invest in long-term, high-risk biotechnology research need to know that the possible fruits of their investment will be protected from copyists. Hence, the industry argued the need for patent protection for inventions involving molecules such as proteins, DNA, enzymes and antibodies, which are needed for the treatment and diagnosis of diseases. Without patents, it says, there will be little innovation and no cures.
According to the Minister, however, the draft directive does not render anything patentable that is not patentable under current UK law. If current laws are not adequate, why does the Minister support a new law that does nothing different? I fear that, on the contrary, the European directive will make a difference beyond simply European integration of the rules. That is why commercial concerns are eager to see it in place.
In contrast, organisations that are against such genetic patenting include the Clinical Genetic Society and the Human Genome Organisation—the international body that co-ordinates research into the sequences of the human genome. Opposition also comes from the Royal Society, which has said:
The Royal Society is strongly opposed to any attempts to patent genetic information that is unrelated to the function of use of relevant genes. Commercial pressures in this direction pose a grave threat to scientific research and a hindrance to its ultimate medical applications.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on human genetics concluded in its third report that
there manifestly is no consensus on a Directive to harmonise patent law and we consider that the imposition of a Directive could be more harmful than the differences in the criteria for patentability in different countries under the current system.
The Select Committee did not oppose any form of patenting. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) spoke to me earlier about the important concerns that the Committee raised about patenting material that is identified without any change, as distinct from the techniques used or the specific use to which it is to be put. If such patenting happens, I fear that there will be a constriction on the research available. That is the background to the concerns that have been raised.
Some patient groups are opposed to genetic patenting—though others are in favour of it—in spite of apparently being the clearest potential beneficiaries. The American


patient umbrella group NORD—the National Organisation for Rare Disorders—has spoken out against patenting of genes, arguing that it will have a negative effect on research. Incidentally, that organisation supports the orphan drug law, which offers tax incentives, among other benefits, to companies involved in research and development. We are not talking about opposition to the principle of the uses to which such research can be put, but a real concern about further research or useful medical use being restricted because of the costs.
The European Union has already produced a draft proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation on orphan medical products, which is due for discussion. However, the patent draft directive is being discussed without co-ordination.
Other reasons for the concerns of such disparate bodies are clear. Perhaps the most important is that there are many who believe that the directive will threaten future scientific and medical research. In the United States, where such patents already exist, the concerns that I have expressed have become a reality. The United States company, Biocyte, has a sweeping patent on the use of all human blood cells from the umbilical cord of a new-born. That is being disputed by US and European medical groups, because it threatens the free use of such cells for transplant and research.
The Minister should also bear in mind the experience of the Manchester Regional Genetics Centre, which received an unexpected bill from a Toronto-based company demanding a $5,000 licence fee, plus a royalty of $4 per test for every time the centre used a cystic fibrosis gene screening test on which the company had previously filed a patent application. The centre cannot afford that, and I fear that many others in the national health service will not be able to.

Dr. Lynne Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Eurocord, the international organisation of cord blood banks, has challenged Biocyte's patent. Does that not highlight the fact that patents are being granted far too widely—the point made in the Select Committee report? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the proposals in the report were adopted, many of the concerns that he is raising could be addressed?

Mr. Taylor: I agree. I mentioned the report a moment ago for that reason. The Americans are patenting too much and too widely, but the European directive appears to be drawn equally widely in its potential application.
I shall not concentrate on those issues tonight, but I do not believe—as the Government argue—that patenting has no relation to the wider ethical, moral and environmental issues. There are real concerns about animal cruelty, the effect on biodiversity, the impact on farmers—particularly in developing countries—and our ability to control the after-effects of the technology. We are moving further into the commercial development and patenting sector than our ability to control the issues yet allows us. That is the imbalance about which I am concerned.
I suspect that the Minister will argue both that clear patenting laws are necessary to protect investment and innovation and that existing UK law already allows such protection. It is certainly true that some advances in biotechnology are already patentable. A body of case law

regulations is already in place in national patent offices and the European patent office. The EPO is however an independent international organisation, granting European patents according to the European patent convention, which has been signed by European Union member states and several European states that are not in the EU.
There are provisions in the European patent convention that govern relations between national patent offices and the EPO in order to harmonise national and European laws while maintaining an important degree of subsidiarity. That system has been in place for more than 20 years, and during that time, case law has built up important nuances and precedents that I understand are not contained in the proposed directive. I wonder why it is felt that it is right to ignore that history and the slower evolution of matters rather than go for the big-bang approach of a single directive.
Moreover, in the past few weeks, the European Commission has announced the publication of its Green Paper on the creation of a Community patent. That paper should have preceded the proposed directive. It is a consultation document, open to public view and opinion, whereas, in contrast, the biotechnological patenting directive is a legislative document which will have direct effect on Community and national law. It seems that the cart is before the horse.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be helpful for the UK to make two specific submissions? First, perhaps there is a case for less rather than more patenting. Secondly, we ought to be exploring the notion of public goods. Where there has been a financial contribution to research schemes—direct or indirect—either by Governments, charities or voluntary participants, that should be translated into a public stakeholding in goods which cannot be patentable.

Mr. Taylor: I would certainly be interested to consider that, although I do not think that it would necessarily be simple. There are question marks over how far back the research goes for it to be considered that there had been public input. Nevertheless, the point is interesting. I shall turn later to how wide genetic patenting appears to go beyond anything in the past.
If the draft directive is adopted by the Commission, which institution does the Minister believe will have authorisation to grant patents—the EPO or the Commission? To which institution will national patent offices be finally responsible? Which institution will regulate and, in cases of contravention, prosecute?
It has been argued by some that the directive is necessary to clarify advances in genetic patenting. I fear that it is more likely to lead to confusion. There is confusion not only in the consequences of the directive but in its wording. The issue of human cloning, for example, has been left vague. It is true that the directive excludes
procedures for human reproductive cloning
and
methods in which human embryos are used",
but technically an embryo is a fertilised cell—a stage bypassed when the now infamous Dolly the sheep was cloned. The language used and the scope for restrictions are therefore demonstrably flawed.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, just as it was said in the 1930s that


where one begins by burning books one ends up by burning people, where one begins by experimenting and patenting parts of animals and plants one ends up by patenting parts of human bodies? Does he agree that the directive could have significant detrimental effects on animal welfare? Is he aware that the Minister sought to press Members of the European Parliament to widen the conditions under which animals could be patented beyond medical benefits to other benefits? Does he agree that it is better to go slow rather than fast in this area because significant matters are at issue? We need to be careful because once something is unleashed, it is difficult to recall it.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes some important points. I certainly have concerns about animal welfare implications in some areas. I do not have time to dwell on those points in detail. It is a huge area and the debate is short.
The processes for production of human beings other than by cloning are not mentioned explicitly. The draft directive excludes
methods for the artificial production of human embryos containing the same genetic information as another human being or dead person.
That is unusual wording which leaves unanswered the question of the production of a human being with different genetic information with, for example, a slowed-down aging process.
The Roslin Institute, which cloned Dolly, has filed a patent application for the technique covering human cloning as well as the cloning of sheep. What is the Government's view on that application? To be fair to the Roslin Institute, it has claimed that that has been done to prevent others from producing a human clone with the technique. Nevertheless, the principle of patenting the technique raises some real concerns.
Biotechnology developments have outpaced our ability to oversee and regulate them. Genetically modified soya bean is in the food chain, and we have no ability to label or police it. Genetically modified organisms are entering the natural environment, from which they cannot be retrieved, and yet no one can be certain of the long-term effects. Plant and animal varieties are increasingly coming under the control of industrial conglomerates, as is scientific research.
The Minister's letter to British Members of the European Parliament argues that British industry would be hampered if the directive were not passed. However, European patents are valid only in European countries that are party to the European patent convention. Therefore, if a European company is not granted a European patent for a specific application, a US or Japanese firm will not be granted one either. If a European firm wishes to apply to the US patent office, it can do so. If a US patent is granted, the European firm is allowed exactly the same patent rights as a US or Japanese firm holding the same patent. I can, therefore, see no reason why the present patent-granting system should affect European industry's international or competitive position, or any reason to rush into taking decisions.
The key issue is whether genetic patents should be broader in scope than those in other fields and, crucially, whether someone who isolates and characterises natural

material should be able to patent the material itself, rather than the method for doing so or the use to which it is put. The discoverer has not necessarily contributed anything to the material, merely identified and isolated it. If that principle had been applied to chemistry, the elements themselves would have been patented. Isolated elements are not inventions, although the technique used to remove the element may be inventive.
Patents should therefore only be granted on the inventive process developed to isolate the element or perhaps the use to which it is put. Otherwise, it would be possible for a biomedical company to control completely all future research and medical development that arose from the isolation of a specific gene. That would not foster research, but kill it. It would also make the possibility of genetic testing for disorders, such as heart disease or breast cancer, potentially prohibitively expensive—too expensive for our overstretched NHS. In those respects, the directive threatens the foundations of scientific research and medical action—the free access to material and the freedom to pursue promising lines of inquiry. That is my concern and the reason why I have brought the issue to the House.

The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for initiating this debate because it brings together important issues of scientific research, ethics and the implications for human beings and animals and the law. As the House knows, much of our law is based on property law and the amalgam of those issues is an important focus for debate. To some extent, the debate is helpfully premature. By that I mean that the debate has been sparked by the European Commission's proposal to harmonise patent law in Europe. That proposal will probably arrive before the House in some two to four years' time when, I hope, it will be fully debated under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The hon. Member is right to suggest that we get ahead of the debate. We debated the issue on 11 July at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), although I was sad that more hon. Members were not present. However, at the current rate of one debate a week, the subject will get a fair hearing over the next four years, which is right and proper.
Biotechnology is a relatively recent area of science and it is already providing us with steroids to treat asthma and rheumatoid arthritis, improved forms of insulin for diabetes, vaccines for hepatitis B, monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of cancer and diagnostic test kits for use in blood and food hygiene testing. I do not want to suggest that all biotechnology is bad; in all fairness, I do not think that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell suggested that that it was either. Others spoke on the understanding that the debate concerns scientific research, ethics and law rather than suggested that the whole lot should be thrown out. That is much appreciated.
Biotechnology is already driving some of the helpful, useful medicines of the future and could be the key to well-being and quality of life. Its contribution to the future may be enormous. It will offer the possibility of improved diagnosis and treatment for a range of conditions—some of which are apparently incurable at present—and that must be welcome. It will provide benefits not only for


animal health but for animal feed, seeds and plants and it will improve the ability of crops to withstand extremes of climate while reducing the need for reliance on pesticides and herbicides. That in itself must be good. It will enable crops to be grown in drought-hit parts of the world and contribute to tackling world poverty and obtaining international food security.
We as parliamentarians should see our job as this: to do our best, in the ambiguous world of science, to ensure that scientific developments are life enhancing and not dehumanising. It is in that context that anxieties about patenting, in particular, are important. I appreciate the anxieties that new technology can create—for instance, worries about genetically modified foods, the prospect of cloning and the application of technologies to the very substance of life itself. We need to ensure that regulations safeguarding human health and dignity, the environment and animal welfare play a key role in creating and maintaining public confidence. I entirely accept the need for us to ensure that regulation keeps pace with scientific developments, to the best of our abilities, and I welcome the fact that our debates are ahead of decisions that may be made four years hence.
Although the patent system is long established and although the concept of registered invention is broadly understood, the system remains incredibly complex legally. It is worth running over a few of the ground rules within which the current United Kingdom system operates.
Patents encourage research by providing an opportunity to cover costs, but the system does not insist that the research takes place; nor does it influence the subject or direction of research. That must be for those involved in developing the technology to decide. It would be wrong to influence such decisions or to try to second guess the actions arising from them by somehow tailoring rights to specific technical subjects or directions. Patent rights are without prejudice to all other bodies of law. That means that, although a patent holder has the legal right to prevent anyone else from using an invention, that right gives him no authorisation to use or exploit it himself. Such use is entirely governed by other regulations dealing with such matters as human health and dignity. That puts the issue into a clear public legal context.
Patents give rights holders a monopoly for use of their inventions, but that lasts for a limited period. Patentees can be obliged to license their rights if it can be shown that monopolies are blocking the exploitation of other patents. It is important to note that the free use of a patented invention for experimental purposes is also allowed. When the rights cease, the invention passes into the public domain for all to use. When patents drop out of the system, inventions become generically available for anyone to work on.
In return for that kind of protection, details of the invention must be published in enough detail for the technically competent to be able to use it. The scope of that protection must be clearly stated for all to see—and to challenge if they wish. I stress that because the hon. Gentleman mentioned a particular case—the Biocyte case—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) also referred. That is

a demonstration of the right to challenge. People should challenge, to find out what is the scope of the patenting cover and to try to compete with the original invention.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Select Committee recommended that those who wished to challenge the patent should have the right to challenge it before it was considered by the relevant patenting organisation rather than have to wait until the patent had been granted and then challenge it in the courts, which would take many years. Will my hon. Friend look at that? The Committee wanted the Government to act.

Mr. Battle: Yes, I shall. I have only a few moments in which to reply and I feel constrained by the fact that this is not a full debate. We can consider that and I shall come to it in more detail in a moment.
We ought to remember that patents are available only for technical inventions. Rights cannot be obtained for finding something that freely occurs in nature, such as a gene sequence; nor can they be obtained for materials in their natural state. We should be absolutely clear that the human body and its elements in their natural state are not patentable. Moreover, treatments and diagnoses when performed on the human or animal body, including those using isolated genes, are not protectable. Plant and animal varieties also cannot be patented.
Furthermore, rights can be refused or revoked if it is found that using an invention would be immoral. As I said, given the promises of biotechnology for new treatments and cures, it seems that rather than providing patents on life, as some have suggested, one might see the system as providing patents for life.
Patents are obtained for new technical solutions to problems to the extent that an invention involves intervening in the genetic make-up, which in practice means that rights can encompass gene sequences, but only when separated from nature to the extent that the product of the invention is protectable. In other words, genes in their natural state cannot be patented, only new technical interventions. It is important to make that clear distinction.
As with any technology, those first in uncharted territory may be in a position to obtain patent rights that are broader than appear later to be justified once the area has been explored further. There has been concern that that may be happening in biotechnology—precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. I must emphasise, however, that rights can always be challenged. That means that the judiciary should be ready to review the scope of the patentee's legal entitlement.
A recent case before the House of Lords—Biogen v. Medeva —has shown that monopolies can be cut back if they move into areas outside their legitimate scope. That case involved the ownership of a gene sequence relating, I think, to hepatitis B. As parts of that monopoly could not have been understood at the time, the court ruled against it. The courts can cut access to rights. Existing claims can be challenged and it is important to remember that.
I must say a few words about the European Commission's directive. It has a history—it was proposed as long ago as January last year. We managed to get the first opinion on the original proposal on 16 July. Some 70 amendments to the Commission's proposal were


passed, including a suggestion from one Member of the European Parliament that an ethics committee should be created. We support that suggestion. We were asking the Commission to give us a proposal. That was the idea. There was nothing to discuss because the question had fallen into a void.
Essentially, the European Commission's proposal is a single market measure to extend or change the existing patent system in Britain. It is designed to enhance the operation of a single market in biotechnological products rather than to change the law in Britain.
The European Parliament's amendments were passed and we now need to study carefully the proposals that were put together from those amendments. We do not even have the final text of that document. When the proposals emerge, they will be put before us.
The European Commission is expected to amend its proposal in the light of the Parliament's opinion and to submit that to the Council of Ministers for adoption. Until

the Commission's amended proposal emerges, it is not possible to determine the precise text that will be put before the Council of Ministers dealing with the internal market.
When the Council is able to reach a common position on the text, it will be sent back to the European Parliament, which will produce a second opinion. Only when the Council and Parliament have agreed will the directive be put forward for adoption in the member states. At that stage, we can discuss the statutory instrument in this Chamber and in Committee and there will be a full debate in the other place.
We are a long way from debating the detail. What we needed was a text to debate and that was the purpose of my letters, which were played off, one against another, rather unfairly.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.